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, defendant, is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem Legal Group limited liability company. 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. It meant that McDevitt would serve as point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and Tandem defendants. Some of the allegations raised in Mike McDevitt and Tessemae’s case includes the following.
One of them is RICO. There is a claim under the RICO act against Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group. The act of Michael McDevitt and Racketeering must be clearly shown by the plaintiff since it’s a requirement. As a result of this activity the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.
Second one is common-law fraud. The plaintiff claims that Michael McDevitt and Fraud cases were reported. However the plaintiff need to plead claims of fraud with particularity. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. 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.
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. 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 rules that the plaintiff has an amended complaint with a naked allegations.
The last one 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. 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. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.