All You Need to Know About Mike McDevitt and Tessemae

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 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. This means that McDevitt would serve as the point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and the 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. The act of Michael McDevitt and Racketeering must be clearly shown by the plaintiff since it’s a requirement. 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. 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. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. 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.

Another one is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. 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. Defendants in this case argues that Tessemae’s has not pled facts that support its assertions of a civil conspiracy among McDevitt, has not pled any facts supporting existence of a confederation among the defendant and has not alleged the commission of any underlying tortious act. This therefore leads to a conclusion that the complaints contains a naked allegation.

Last is tortious interference. Tessemae’s alleges a count of tortious interference with business relations against McDevitt, Intlekofer and Chehansky. 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. This means that the plaintiff must allege interference through improper means which the law limits to violence, intimidation or defamation. Interference with business relationships need be proven here. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.