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. Mike McDevitt and Lawsuit tend to be the major cause of all this misunderstanding. In this case McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him with the promise of using Tandem legal and business services. The main motive here was to serve as the point of contact between the two involved parties. There are several allegations Tessemae’s alleges McDevitt and claims to suffer loss and damage as a result and includes the following.
One of them is 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.
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. Time, place, contents of false representations and identity of the person making such misrepresentation are the particularity. The plaintiff had therefore pleaded this allegation with sufficient particularity as per the court declarations. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.
Next is civil conspiracy. In this case there is an alleged civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. There are some requirements for this allegations to be successful with some of them including 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. Defendants in this case argues that Tessemae’s has not pled facts that support its assertions of a civil conspiracy among McDevitt, has not pled any facts supporting existence of a confederation among the defendant and has not alleged the commission of any underlying tortious act. 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. Tessemae’s alleges a count of tortious interference with business relations against McDevitt, Intlekofer and Chehansky. 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. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.