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. There is lack of fulfillment of the promise McDevitt gave in this case. This means that McDevitt would serve as the point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and the Tandem Defendants. Some of the allegations raised in Mike McDevitt and Tessemae’s case includes the following.
RICO. Michael McDevitt and Racketeering is a claim being raised in this case by the defendant. 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.
Next is common-law fraud. There is an allegation by the plaintiff 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. Time, place, contents of false representations and identity of the person making such misrepresentation are the particularity. The court finds that Tessemae’s has pleaded its claim of common-law fraud with sufficient particularity to survive defendant’s motion. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.
Another one is civil conspiracy. In this case there is an alleged 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. The fact that this can’t stand on its own requires it being 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.
The last one is tortious interference. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. Some requirements here include the plaintiff to show that the defendant committed intentional and willful acts, calculated the cause of damage, there is actual damage and it was done with unlawful purpose. The plaintiff must allege interference through improper means which the law limits to violence, defamation and intimidation. 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.
Support: image source