Tessemae’s, plaintiff in this case, is a Maryland limited liability company that sells marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and related items throughout the United States thereby affecting interstate commerce. Michael McDevitt, defendant, is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem Legal Group limited liability company. 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. There is a claim under the RICO act against Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group. This allegation requires a plaintiff to plead facts showing conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. There are multiple injuries that were suffered by the plaintiff.
Common-law fraud. Tessemae’s alleges that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. There has to be plead of this point 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 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.
Civil conspiracy. There is a count of 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. 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. This therefore leads to a conclusion that the complaints contains a naked allegation.
Tortious interference. Tessemae’s alleges a count of tortious interference with business relations against McDevitt, Intlekofer and Chehansky. There are some requirements under the Maryland law requiring that the plaintiff should 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. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated 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.