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. 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.
One of them is 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. 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. There has to be plead of this point 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. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Another one 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. 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 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.
Last is 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. 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.
No responses yet