Mike McDevitt and Tessemae Case
The plaintiff in this case is Tessemae’s that is a Maryland limited liability selling marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and much more. Michael McDevitt, defendant, is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem Legal Group limited liability company. Mike McDevitt and Lawsuit tend to be the major cause of all this misunderstanding. In this case McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him with the promise of using Tandem legal and business services. This means that McDevitt would serve as the point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and the Tandem Defendants. Michael McDevitt and Lawsuit is alleged to cause damage and loss to the plaintiff.
The first one tend to be RICO. There is a claim under the RICO act against Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group. This allegation requires a plaintiff to plead facts showing conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. Tessemae’s alleges multiple injuries as part of its RICO claim including those that plausibly arise from Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Next is common-law fraud. The plaintiff claims that Michael McDevitt and Fraud cases were reported. However the plaintiff need to plead claims of fraud with particularity. Time, place, contents of false representations and identity of the person making such misrepresentation are the particularity. The plaintiff had therefore pleaded this allegation with sufficient particularity as per the court declarations. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.
Civil conspiracy. There is a count of civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. Under Maryland law civil conspiracy requires a confederation of two or more persons by agreements or understanding and some unlawful or tortious act. In addition this conspiracy claim cannot stand on its own therefore must be based on some underlying tortious action by the defendants. The case is different here as the plaintiff has not pled facts that support its assertions. This therefore leads to a conclusion that the complaints contains a naked allegation.
Last is tortious interference. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. This claim is however required under Maryland law to show that the defendant committed intentional and willful acts, calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff in its lawful business, there is actual damage and it was done with the unlawful purpose of causing such damage. This means that the plaintiff must allege interference through improper means which the law limits to violence, intimidation or defamation. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated business relationships. In this case, Tessemae’s has failed to allege the existence of any prospective relationships that would have occurred in the absence of interference by the defendant.