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. Michael McDevitt Baltimore city county is the defendant and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem legal group. It all began when Greg Vetter first met McDevitt through an employee of Howard Bank. McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him and the Tandem Defendants with the promise that he would use Tandem’s legal and business services to help Tessemae’s grow. 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. There is a claim under the RICO act against Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group. 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. There is an allegation by the plaintiff 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. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Next is civil conspiracy. In this case there is an alleged civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. There are some requirements for this allegations to be successful with some of them including unlawful or tortious act. 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.
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. The plaintiff must allege interference through improper means which the law limits to violence, defamation and intimidation. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated business relationships. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.