What You Need to Know About Mike McDevitt and Tessemae
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 Baltimore city county is the defendant and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem legal group. It all began when Greg Vetter first met McDevitt through an employee of Howard Bank. In this case McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him with the promise of using Tandem legal and business services. The main motive here was to serve as the point of contact between the two involved parties. Some of the allegations raised in Mike McDevitt and Tessemae’s case includes the following.
The first one tend to be RICO. There is a claim under the RICO act against Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group. There are some requirements in this point such as conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. As a result of this activity the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.
Common-law fraud. Tessemae’s alleges that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. It’s s requirement under Rule 9(b) for the plaintiffs to plead claims of fraud with particularity. This means that the particularity is the time, place, contents of false representations and identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what obtained thereby. 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.
Next is civil conspiracy. There is a count of civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. It’s required under Maryland law that civil conspiracy contain a confederation of two or more persons by agreements or understanding, some unlawful or tortious act done in furtherance of the conspiracy and the actual damage. However this cannot stand on its own meaning that it must be based on some underlying tortious action by the defendants. However the defendants in this case argue that the plaintiff has not pled facts that support its assertion of a civil conspiracy among the defendant. This therefore leads to a conclusion that the complaints contains a naked allegation.
Tortious interference. This allegations against Mike McDevitt Baltimore is raised that caused damage to the plaintiff. 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. The plaintiff must allege interference through improper means which the law limits to violence, defamation and intimidation. Interference with business relationships need be proven here. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.