6 Facts About Everyone Thinks Are True
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. There is lack of fulfillment of the promise McDevitt gave in this case. 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.
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. As a result of this activity the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.
Next is common-law fraud. There is an allegation by the plaintiff 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. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Civil conspiracy. There is a count of civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. 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. 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. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. Some requirements here include the plaintiff to show that the defendant committed intentional and willful acts, calculated the cause of damage, there is actual damage and it was done with unlawful purpose. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. It should also proof that there were interference with existing business relationships. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.
Comments are closed.