Getting Down To Basics with
All 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. McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him and the Tandem Defendants with the promise that he would use Tandem’s legal and business services to help Tessemae’s grow. 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.
The first one tend to be RICO. Michael McDevitt and Racketeering is a claim being raised in this case by the defendant. This allegation requires a plaintiff to plead facts showing conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
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. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. The court finds that Tessemae’s has pleaded its claim of common-law fraud with sufficient particularity to survive defendant’s motion. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Another one 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. The case is different here as the plaintiff has not pled facts that support its assertions. The court therefore agrees with defendants that the amended complaint contains a naked allegation that Michael McDevitt and Defendent entered into agreement to attempt to seize control of the company.
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. Interference with business relationships need be proven here. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.
