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. 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. 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.
One of them is 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. 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. There is an allegation by the plaintiff that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. However the plaintiff need to plead claims of fraud with particularity. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. The court finds that Tessemae’s has pleaded its claim of common-law fraud with sufficient particularity to survive defendant’s motion. 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. In this case there is an alleged civil conspiracy between Mike McDevitt and Tessemae. Under Maryland law civil conspiracy requires a confederation of two or more persons by agreements or understanding and some 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. 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. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. 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. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. Interference with business relationships need be proven here. 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.