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. 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. 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. The act of Michael McDevitt and Racketeering must be clearly shown by the plaintiff since it’s a requirement. 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. There is an allegation by the plaintiff that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. However the plaintiff need to plead claims of fraud 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. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.

Next is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. 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. 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.

Tortious interference. Tessemae’s alleges a count of tortious interference with business relations against McDevitt, Intlekofer and Chehansky. There are some requirements under the Maryland law requiring that the plaintiff should 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. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated business relationships. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.