What 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. On the other hand the defendant tend to be Mike McDevitt and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of 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. 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. There are some requirements in this point such as conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. As a result of this activity the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.
Common-law fraud. The plaintiff claims that Michael McDevitt and Fraud cases were reported. However the plaintiff need 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. Michael McDevitt and Defendent are identified as ones who made the misrepresentations via phone which harmed the plaintiff.
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. However this cannot stand on its own meaning that it must be 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. This therefore leads to a conclusion that the complaints contains a naked allegation.
Last is tortious interference. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. 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. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated business relationships. Tessemae’s failed to prove this point.
Supporting reference: our website