What You Need to Know About Mike McDevitt and Tessemae
Tessemae’s, plaintiff in this case, is a Maryland limited liability company that sells marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and related items throughout the United States thereby affecting interstate commerce. Michael McDevitt Baltimore city county is the defendant and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem legal group. Mike McDevitt and Lawsuit tend to be the major cause of all this misunderstanding. There is lack of fulfillment of the promise McDevitt gave in this case. It meant that McDevitt would serve as point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and Tandem defendants. Michael McDevitt and Lawsuit is alleged to cause damage and loss to the plaintiff.
The first one tend to be RICO. Michael McDevitt and Racketeering is a claim being raised in this case by the defendant. The act of Michael McDevitt and Racketeering must be clearly shown by the plaintiff since it’s a requirement. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
Second one is common-law fraud. There is an allegation by the plaintiff that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. 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. In this case Tessemae’s identifies McDevitt as the person who made the misrepresentations via phone and the plaintiff was harmed since the defendant profited from such misrepresentations.
Another one is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. Under Maryland law civil conspiracy requires a confederation of two or more persons by agreements or understanding and some unlawful or tortious act. The fact that this can’t stand on its own requires it being based on some underlying tortious action by the defendants. Defendants in this case argues that Tessemae’s has not pled facts that support its assertions of a civil conspiracy among McDevitt, has not pled any facts supporting existence of a confederation among the defendant and has not alleged the commission of any underlying tortious act. The court therefore agrees with defendants that the amended complaint contains a naked allegation that Michael McDevitt and Defendent entered into agreement to attempt to seize control of the company.
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. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.