Tessemae’s, plaintiff in this case, is a Maryland limited liability company that sells marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and related items throughout the United States thereby affecting interstate commerce. 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.
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. As a result of this activity the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.
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.
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 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.
The last one is tortious interference. This allegations against Mike McDevitt Baltimore is raised that caused damage to the plaintiff. 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. It should also proof that there were interference with existing business relationships. In this case, Tessemae’s has failed to allege the existence of any prospective relationships that would have occurred in the absence of interference by the defendant.