Lessons Learned from Years with

Mike McDevitt and Tessemae Case

The plaintiff in this case is Tessemae’s that is a Maryland limited liability selling marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and much more. On the other hand the defendant tend to be Mike McDevitt and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of 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. The main motive here was to serve as the point of contact between the two involved parties. Some of the allegations raised in Mike McDevitt and Tessemae’s case 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. Tessemae’s alleges multiple injuries as part of its RICO claim including those that plausibly arise from Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.

Common-law fraud. Tessemae’s alleges 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. The court finds that Tessemae’s has pleaded its claim of common-law fraud with sufficient particularity to survive defendant’s motion. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.

Another one is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. Under Maryland law civil conspiracy requires a confederation of two or more persons by agreements or understanding and some unlawful or tortious act. In addition this conspiracy claim cannot stand on its own therefore 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. 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. The plaintiff must allege interference through improper means which the law limits to violence, defamation and intimidation. Interference with business relationships need be proven here. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.