In this case Tessemae’s tend to be the plaintiff and is a Maryland limited liability company. Michael McDevitt Baltimore city county is the defendant and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem legal group. 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. The main motive here was to serve as the point of contact between the two involved parties. Michael McDevitt and Lawsuit is alleged to cause damage and loss to the plaintiff.
RICO. Tessemae’s arts a claim under the Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act against McDevitt and Tandem Group. The act of Michael McDevitt and Racketeering must be clearly shown by the plaintiff since it’s a requirement. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
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. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. The court finds that Tessemae’s has pleaded its claim of common-law fraud with sufficient particularity to survive defendant’s motion. 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.
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. However the defendants in this case argue that the plaintiff has not pled facts that support its assertion of a civil conspiracy among the defendant. 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.
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. 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. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.
