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 Tessemae’s are in a conflicting agreement which the plaintiff seeks compensation in court. 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.
RICO. Tessemae’s arts a claim under the Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act against McDevitt and Tandem Group. There are some requirements in this point such as conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
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. 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. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Next is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. 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. The case is different here as the plaintiff has not pled facts that support its assertions. The court therefore rules that the plaintiff has an amended complaint with a naked allegations.
The last one is tortious interference. This allegations against Mike McDevitt Baltimore is raised that caused damage to the plaintiff. There are some requirements under the Maryland law requiring that the plaintiff should 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.