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. Mike McDevitt and Tessemae’s are in a conflicting agreement which the plaintiff seeks compensation in court. 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. Michael McDevitt and Lawsuit is alleged to cause damage and loss to the plaintiff.
The first one tend to be RICO. Tessemae’s arts a claim under the Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act against McDevitt and Tandem Group. 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.
Second one is common-law fraud. The plaintiff claims that Michael McDevitt and Fraud cases were reported. 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. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.
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. 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.
Last is tortious interference. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. 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.
Suggested Post: site web