All You Need to Know About Mike McDevitt and Tessemae
In this case Tessemae’s tend to be the plaintiff and is a Maryland limited liability company. 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. In this case McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him with the promise of using Tandem legal and business services. 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. 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.
Second one is common-law fraud. Tessemae’s alleges 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. 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. 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.
Next is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. Under Maryland law civil conspiracy requires a confederation of two or more persons by agreements or understanding and some 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. This therefore leads to a conclusion that the complaints contains a naked allegation.
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. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated business relationships. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.