The plaintiff in this case is Tessemae’s that is a Maryland limited liability selling marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and much more. 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. There are several allegations Tessemae’s alleges McDevitt and claims to suffer loss and damage as a result and 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. Tessemae’s alleges multiple injuries as part of its RICO claim including those that plausibly arise from Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Next is common-law fraud. The plaintiff claims that Michael McDevitt and Fraud cases were reported. 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. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. 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.
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. 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.
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. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. Interference with business relationships need be proven here. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.
