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. On the other hand the defendant tend to be Mike McDevitt and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of 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. This means that McDevitt would serve as the point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and the Tandem Defendants. Michael McDevitt and Lawsuit is alleged to cause damage and loss to the plaintiff.
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. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
Next 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. 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. 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.
Next is civil conspiracy. There is a count of 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. 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.
Last is 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. It should also proof that there were interference with existing business relationships. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.
