Mike McDevitt and Tessemae Case

In this case Tessemae’s tend to be the plaintiff and is a Maryland limited liability company. Michael McDevitt, defendant, is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem Legal Group limited liability company. Mike McDevitt and Lawsuit tend to be the major cause of all this misunderstanding. 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. There are several allegations Tessemae’s alleges McDevitt and claims to suffer loss and damage as a result and includes the following.

RICO. Michael McDevitt and Racketeering is a claim being raised in this case by the defendant. 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.

Second one is common-law fraud. Tessemae’s alleges that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. There has to be plead of this point with particularity. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.

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. In addition this conspiracy claim cannot stand on its own therefore must be 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. 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. This allegations against Mike McDevitt Baltimore is raised that caused damage to the plaintiff. 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. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. It should also proof that there were interference with existing business relationships. In this case, Tessemae’s has failed to allege the existence of any prospective relationships that would have occurred in the absence of interference by the defendant.

Researched here: her response