Mike McDevitt and Tessemae Case
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, defendant, is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem Legal Group limited liability company. 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. There are several allegations Tessemae’s alleges McDevitt and claims to suffer loss and damage as a result and 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. 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. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. 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. 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. In addition this conspiracy claim cannot stand on its own therefore 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. The court therefore rules that the plaintiff has an amended complaint with a naked allegations.
Last is tortious interference. Tessemae’s alleges a count of tortious interference with business relations against McDevitt, Intlekofer and Chehansky. 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. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. 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.