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 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. The main motive here was to serve as the point of contact between the two involved parties. Michael McDevitt and Lawsuit is alleged to cause damage and loss to the plaintiff.
RICO. Tessemae’s arts a claim under the Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act against McDevitt and Tandem Group. There are some requirements in this point such as conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
Second one is 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. 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. The fact that this can’t stand on its own requires it being 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. Tessemae’s alleges a count of tortious interference with business relations against McDevitt, Intlekofer and Chehansky. This claim is however required under Maryland law to 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.