What 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. 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. There is lack of fulfillment of the promise McDevitt gave in this case. It meant that McDevitt would serve as point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and Tandem defendants. There are several allegations Tessemae’s alleges McDevitt and claims to suffer loss and damage as a result and includes the following.
The first one tend to be RICO. There is a claim under the RICO act against Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group. 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.
Next is common-law fraud. Tessemae’s alleges that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. There has to be plead of this point with particularity. Time, place, contents of false representations and identity of the person making such misrepresentation are the particularity. 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.
Next is civil conspiracy. In this case there is an alleged civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. 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. 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.
Last is tortious interference. This allegations against Mike McDevitt Baltimore is raised that caused damage to the plaintiff. 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. 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.
Supporting reference: https://www.einnews.com/