12-Person Jury
FILED
3/15/2021 5:34 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
12579340
MICHAEL EGGUM, an individual, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) 2021L002849
v. ) Case No. _________________
)
RYAN KOWALIS, an individual, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
STEVEN TSONIS, an individual and )
KEROUACS CAFÉ INC., an Illinois )
corporation, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff, Michael Eggum (“Plaintiff” or “Eggum”) for his Complaint for Damages against
Defendants, Ryan Kowalis (“Kowalis”), Steven Tsonis (“Tsonis”) and Kerouacs Café, Inc.
(“Kerouacs”) (Kowalis and Tsonis are collectively referred to as the “Individual Defendants” and
together with Kerouacs as the “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
1. Defendants Kowalis and Tsonis deliberately misled Plaintiff into investing the nest
egg he accumulated while serving our country overseas into a doomed restaurant venture.
2. Defendants told a myriad of lies to Plaintiff – from a representation that they
already owned the restaurant and had contributed $200,000 into the enterprise themselves to
promises to make “incentive payments” to Plaintiff - to coax him into making three separate
“investments” totaling $265,000.
3. After each “investment” by Plaintiff, Kowalis and Tsonis simply transferred the
majority of his money to themselves. As a result, Plaintiff brings the present action seeking
damages for fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Plaintiff Eggum is an individual residing in Berwyn, Cook County, Illinois.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
5. Defendant Kowalis is an individual residing at 728 W. Jackson Blvd., #620,
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
6. Defendant Tsonis is an individual residing at 1040 W. Adams Street, #603,
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
7. Defendant Kerouacs is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business
located at 1202 W. Grand Ave., Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Kowalis and Tsonis because
both reside in Cook County, Illinois and over Kerouacs because it is an Illinois corporation.
Further, this court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(1)
because Defendants transacted business within Illinois and pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(7)
and made and performed under a contract or promise substantially connected with Illinois.
9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because Defendants
Tsonis and Kowalis reside in Cook County and the transaction out of which the cause of action
arose occurred in Cook County.
BACKGROUND FACTS
10. Plaintiff is a military veteran that spent 10 tours (total of 49 months) deployed in
Iraq and Afghanistan both as an Army Sergeant in the 82nd Airborne and as a private security
contractor working for the United States government.
11. Plaintiff saved the vast majority of his earnings from his deployments with the plan
of investing them upon his return to the United States.
12. Plaintiff’s service ended when he suffered serious injuries from an explosion during
his final deployment in 2014. He managed to survive the blast, return to America and begin
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
rehabilitating his injuries.
13. During his rehabilitation, Plaintiff realized that his injuries were too severe to
permit him to return to foreign service and, as a result, began to seek out ways to invest his savings
to provide himself with an income.
14. On January 23, 2018, an acquaintance by the name of Jon Ruiz introduced him to
Defendants Tsonis and Kowalis with the understanding that Tsonis and Kowalis planned to acquire
and operate a restaurant in the City of Chicago.
15. Between January 23, 2018, Plaintiff met several times with the Individual
Defendants at SoHo House in Chicago to discuss the possibility of investing in their new venture.
16. At these in-person meetings, the Individual Defendants described their personal
backgrounds, including that Kowalis was a director of Kowalis Motors, which owns Toyota of
Orland, Lexus of Orland and Lexus of Merrillville and that Tsonis had a successful history in the
restaurant business.
17. Both Tsonis and Kowalis represented that Tsonis had founded two other Chicago
restaurants known as “Nosh and Booze” and “AMK.” The Individual Defendants represented that
both of these restaurant ventures had been extremely successful, had made money for the
Individual Defendants and had been sold for a profit.
18. The Individual Defendants represented to Plaintiff that they planned to repeat that
same financial success with the restaurant they had recently purchased. Both told Plaintiff that
they had acquired Kerouacs Café restaurant located at 1202 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
(the “Restaurant Premises”) and that their company had signed a lease with the landlord of the
Restaurant Premises.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
19. The Individual Defendants also orally represented that they had capitalized
Kerouacs with $100,000 each for a total of $200,000. They also stated that they wanted Plaintiff
to invest $100,000 to be used to complete the buildout of the Restaurant Premises as they were
“re-concepting” the restaurant and would be calling it “The Gringo.”
20. The Individual Defendants stated that The Gringo would have no problem
generating $1.5 to $1.8 million in annual revenue.
21. On February 20, 2018, Tsonis sent Eggum detailed projections he and Kowalis had
made for The Gringo restaurant. A true and correct copy of Tsonis’ e-mail to Eggum and Kowalis
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
22. Tsonis characterized the projected revenue numbers as “conservative” and
reflective of “the low end of sales and kind of a worst case scenario” for the return of Plaintiff’s
investment.
23. During the in-person discussions at SoHo House, the Individual Defendants also
represented to Plaintiff that neither of them would take a salary from the business until Plaintiff’s
investment was repaid in full and, even then, would discuss any proposed salary or distributions
with him.
24. On March 12, 2018, Defendant Kowalis e-mailed Plaintiff and repeated the
representation that the Individual Defendants had purchased Kerouacs on March 5, 2018. A true
and correct copy of Kowalis’ e-mail of March 12, 2018 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
25. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff, Tsonis, Kowalis and Kerouacs executed a Stock
Purchase Agreement and Shareholder Agreement (“Eggum SPA”) whereby Tsonis and Kowalis
agreed to sell Plaintiff a 15% interest in Kerouacs for $100,000. A true and correct copy of the
Eggum SPA is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
26. Consistent with the Individual Defendants’ prior oral representations, the Recitals
of the Eggum SPA state, among other things, that “on March 5th, 2018, Tsonis and Kowalis
acquired 100% of the equity interests in Kerouacs, and became the sole and exclusive owners of
the Corporation.” Section I of the Eggum SPA also reaffirmed these facts. Id.
27. Section III, 1 of the Eggum SPA requires unanimous shareholder consent for the
Directors or officers “to take any action that would be in contravention of this Agreement.” Id.
28. Section III, 2 of the Eggum SPA bars shareholder distributions until after the
Eggum Incentive Payment is made each month and also bars any preference in distributions of
excess profits to shareholders. Id.
29. Section III, 5 of the Eggum Spa prohibits “any payment of transfer of money or
property to the [sic] Tsonis or Kowalis, regardless of whether such payment or transfer is
characterized as salary, wages, compensation, bonus, or otherwise.” Id.
30. Plaintiff later learned that virtually all of the representations made by the Individual
Defendants to induce him to transfer $100,000 to Kerouacs were false.
31. Though the Individual Defendants had represented as early as March 5, 2018 that
they already owned Kerouacs, the Individual Defendants did not actually purchase Kerouacs until
March 19, 2018, which was after Plaintiff had transferred $100,000 to them on March 13, 2018.
32. Additionally, the Individual Defendants had not been successful in their prior
restaurant ventures and had not invested $200,000 to Kerouacs.
33. They intentionally made these false representations so that Plaintiff would rely on
them and transfer the $100,000 to them.
34. As Plaintiff would later discover, the Individual Defendants agreed to virtually
whatever he suggested, including the quick repayment of his investment through the Eggum
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
Incentive Payments, because they simply wanted to get their hands on his money as quickly as
possible and had no intention of actually honoring any of the promises they made to induce its
transfer.
Kowalis and Tsonis Secretly Sell Shares in Kerouacs to Another Investor
35. After receiving Plaintiff’s “investment,” the Individual Defendants quickly moved
on to their next victim, Janet Ruiz.
36. Ms. Ruiz is an elderly woman in poor health and the mother of Jon Ruiz, a man that
worked for Kerouacs at The Gringo restaurant. Apparently, Ms. Ruiz had obtained an injury
settlement that the Individual Defendants set their sights on.
37. Without obtaining Plaintiff’s permission as required by the Eggum SPA or
notifying him at all, on April 11, 2018, Defendants entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement and
Shareholder Agreement with Juan R. Ruiz and Janet L. Ruiz1 (collectively, “Ruiz”) whereby Ruiz
paid $100,000 to acquire 12% of Kerouacs. A true and correct copy of the Ruiz SPA is attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
38. The Ruiz SPA is nearly identical to the Eggum SPA and contains the same
provisions noted in paragraphs 27-29 above.
39. In particular, just like the Eggum SPA, the Ruiz SPA also promised that Kerouacs
would make a monthly “J. Ruiz Incentive Payment” equal to 5% of Kerouacs monthly Gross
Revenue. See Ex. D, Section III (7).
1Juan R. Ruiz and Janet L. Ruiz entered into the agreement as Trustees of the Declaration of Living Trust of Juan R.
Ruiz and Janet L. Ruiz, dated April 28, 2015.
40. However, the Ruiz SPA makes no mention whatsoever of the Eggum Incentive
Payment promised to Plaintiff in the Eggum SPA and also specifically states that no distributions
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
shall be made to any other Shareholders, which would presumably include Plaintiff, until after the
J. Ruiz Incentive Payment was made each month.
41. Defendants could never have complied with both the Eggum SPA and Ruiz SPA
simultaneously. Making the Eggum Incentive Payment would have violated the Ruiz SPA and
making the Ruiz Incentive Payment would have violated the Eggum SPA.
42. Defendants were not concerned with this conflict because they never intended to
make either the Eggum Incentive Payment or the Ruiz Payment and knew it before entering into
the SPAs.
43. In fact, the only mention of Eggum in the Ruiz SPA is inclusion of his name in a
list of shareholders in Section II (3). However, Section II (5) states:
For the remainder of this Agreement, the term “Kerouacs Shareholders” means the
owners of 100% of the equity interests in the Corporation following the execution
of this Agreement, and therefore refers solely and exclusively to Tsonis, Kowalis
and J. Ruiz.
44. Based on this definition, the Ruiz SPA actually bars Defendants from making the
Eggum Incentive Payment or any distributions to Plaintiff. See Ex. D, Section III.
Tsonis and Kowalis Convince Eggum to Invest an Additional $65,000 into the Restaurant
45. The restaurant opened for business on or about June 8, 2018.
46. Shortly thereafter, the Individual Defendants began speaking with Plaintiff about
the need to enclose the outdoor patio so that it could be used in the winter.
47. They told him that by enclosing the patio, the restaurant would increase its revenue
during the upcoming winter months, which would make it easier for it to make the Eggum
Incentive Payments and addition shareholder distributions.
48. The Individual Defendants then asked Plaintiff to “invest” another $65,000 into
Kerouacs to complete the enclosure. As further inducement to Plaintiff to contribute this money,
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
the Individual Defendants promised to have Kerouacs make additional incentive payments to
Plaintiff and Tsonis agreed to personally guarantee the return of his money.
49. At the insistence of the Individual Defendants, on August 24, 2018, Plaintiff, Tsonis
and Kerouacs entered into an Agreement and Personal Guaranty (“Second Agreement”) whereby
Plaintiff purchased 100 shares of stock in Kerouacs from Tsonis for $65,000. A true and correct
copy of the Second Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
50. Under the Second Agreement, Kerouacs and Tsonis were jointly responsible for
making Additional Eggum Incentive Payments of $5,000 twice per month from September 1, 2018
through March 1, 2019. See Ex. E, Section II (2). Tsonis also agreed to personally guarantee
payment to Plaintiff.
Ruiz Sues Defendants
51. On October 29, 2018, Ruiz filed a lawsuit against Defendants (the “Ruiz Lawsuit”)
for fraud in the inducement and breach of contract, alleging, among other things that the Individual
Defendants fraudulently induced Janet Ruiz to invest $100,000 in Kerouacs by promising to make
“incentive payments” they never intended to make and representing an inaccurate value of her
shares due to the concealment of their prior sale of shares to Eggum. A true and correct copy of
the Ruiz Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
52. The Individual Defendants did not initially disclose the Ruiz Lawsuit to Plaintiff,
though it had been filed against Kerouacs and directly impacted the business.
53. Eventually, more than three months after the Ruiz Lawsuit had been filed, the
Individual Defendants disclosed it to Plaintiff and lied to him about the allegations.
54. The Individual Defendants told Plaintiff that the Ruiz Lawsuit is the sort of thing
that happens in the restaurant business and that Janet Ruiz was just “out for blood” because they
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
had fired her son Jon from the restaurant.
55. The Individual Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiff that the allegations of the
Ruiz Lawsuit were false.
Tsonis and Ruiz Convince Plaintiff to Buy Ruiz’s Shares to Settle the Ruiz Lawsuit
56. The Ruiz Lawsuit put the Individual Defendants in a very difficult position because
it exposed their fraud. Desperate to resolve the lawsuit before it destroyed their larger fraudulent
scheme, they began attempting to convince Plaintiff to buy Ruiz out of the restaurant.
57. The Individual Defendants told Plaintiff that Ruiz was a troublemaker and was
imperiling the restaurant and, therefore, Plaintiff’s “investment” in the restaurant.
58. The Individual Defendants then convinced Plaintiff to purchase Ruiz’s shares with
shares he owned in another business, Donutslut, Ltd., which he had previously paid $100,000 to
acquire.
59. On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff and Ruiz entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement
(“APA”) whereby Eggum sold 200 shares of Donutslut, Ltd. to Ruiz in exchange for 120 shares
of Kerouacs. A true and correct copy of the APA is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
60. By virtue of the APA, Individual Defendants succeeded in inducing Plaintiff to
invest an additional $100,000 into Kerouacs, for a total investment of $265,000.
Individual Defendants Offer False Excuses for Missed Eggum Incentive Payments
61. Under the terms of the Eggum SPA, Kerouacs was to begin making the Eggum
Incentive Payments once the restaurant was open for three months, which was September 7, 2018.
See Ex. C, Section II, 2, a.
62. Though the Eggum SPA granted Eggum complete access to all of Kerouacs books
and records, including its bank statements, the Individual Defendants consistently concealed
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
information regarding Kerouacs’ finances from Eggum.
63. The Individual Defendants gave Eggum access to some, but not all, of the
QuickBooks files for Kerouacs and never gave him access to Kerouacs’ bank accounts or bank
statements.
64. The Individual Defendants arranged Kerouacs’ QuickBooks files so that certain
expenditures and transfers to outside bank accounts were hidden in a filed called “Excluded.” A
true and correct copy of the Excluded list of transfer/expenditures, which Plaintiff obtained in
March, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
65. The Individual Defendants gave Plaintiff the impression that they were being
transparent, but in reality were actively concealing certain expenditures and transfers.
66. The Individual Defendants also intentionally and falsely represented to Plaintiff
that Kerouacs did not have enough money in its bank account to make the Eggum Incentive
Payments and repeatedly showed Plaintiff Kerouacs’ bank account balance on an iPhone banking
application.
67. Unbeknownst to Eggum, Kerouacs’ bank account balance was artificially low
because the Individual Defendants had secretly transferred or spent money from the account before
revealing the account’s balance to Eggum.
68. Plaintiff also discovered later that in order to assist their efforts to conceal Kerouacs
finances from Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants had established three separate bank accounts for
Kerouacs rather than a single operating account as would be typical for a restaurant.
69. The Individual Defendants also misrepresented the cash available to Kerouacs in
order to induce Plaintiff to answer a “capital call” from Kerouacs with transfer of additional funds.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
70. Individual Defendants also falsely stated to Plaintiff that they too were contributing
additional capital to Kerouacs pursuant to the capital calls, when in fact they did not make
contributions. A spreadsheet detailing all amounts contributed to Kerouacs by Plaintiff and the
small payments made to Plaintiff by Kerouacs is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
Plaintiff Discovers the Extent of Defendants’ Fraud and
Law Enforcement Investigates the Individual Defendants
71. In March, 2020, Plaintiff learned the truth about the Individual Defendants’ secret
expenditures and transfers when the QuickBooks files he had access to suddenly included a list of
the Excluded transfers. See Exhibit H.
72. Plaintiff learned that shortly after he invested money on Kerouacs, the Individual
defendants transferred the money out of Kerouacs accounts and into their personal accounts.
73. For example, the QuickBooks screenshot attached here to as Exhibit J, shows
transfers of $40,000 to each of the Individual Defendant’s personal bank accounts on April 23,
2018, days after Ruiz’s $100,000 investment in Kerouacs.
74. Eggum also understands that the Individual Defendants also transferred $45,000 to
each of their personal bank accounts within days of Eggum’s initial $100,000 investment in
Kerouacs in March, 2018.
75. The Individual Defendants also withdrew Eggum’s $65,000 from Kerouacs’
account on August 27, 2021. See Exhibit H.
76. After discovering the Individual Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiff confronted the
Individual Defendants and reported their conduct to the relevant legal authorities. See
correspondence from the FBI to Eggum dated May 10, 2020 attached hereto as Exhibit K.
77. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating the Individual
Defendants and is expected to conclude its investigation with criminal charges sometime in 2021.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
78. Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded that Defendants return his money, but
Defendants have failed and refused to do so.
COUNT I – Fraud
(vs. Individual Defendants)
79. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 79 of Count I.
80. The Individual Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentation to Plaintiff in order
to induce him to enter into the Eggum SPA, Second Agreement and APA.
81. The Individual Defendants knew the representations were materially false when
they made them and intended Plaintiff rely on their false representations.
82. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Individual Defendants’ misrepresentations and
transferred $265,000 to Kerouacs and Ruiz in reliance on the Individual Defendants’
misrepresentations.
83. Plaintiff suffered damages of $265,000, plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys fees
and costs as well as other damages as a result of Individual Defendants fraudulent
misrepresentations.
84. Individual Defendants’ conduct was willful and intentional and, as a result, Plaintiff
should be awarded punitive damages.
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendants Steve Tsonis and Ryan Kowalis, jointly and
severally, in an amount to be proven at trial, including actual damages, pre-judgment interest,
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus all further relief deemed equitable and just.
COUNT II – Conversion
(vs. Individual Defendants)
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
85. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 85 of Count II.
86. Individual Defendants transferred money from Kerouacs’ bank accounts to their
individual bank accounts.
87. Individual Defendants wrongfully exercised dominion or control over property that
belonged to Kerouacs and/or Eggum or Ruiz.
88. Plaintiff has demanded that the Individual Defendants return the money they took
from Kerouacs’ account, but the Individual Defendants have failed and refused to do so and
continue to wrongfully exercise control over the converted funds.
89. Individual Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff damages of at least $265,000,
plus pre-judgment interest and attorneys fees and costs.
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendants Steve Tsonis and Ryan Kowalis, jointly and
severally, in an amount to be proven at trial, including actual damages, pre-judgment interest,
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus all further relief deemed equitable and just.
COUNT III – Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(vs. Individual Defendants)
90. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 90 of Count III.
91. As officers of Kerouacs, the Individual Defendants had fiduciary duties to Kerouacs
and its shareholders, including the duty of loyalty.
92. The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
defrauding Ruiz, transferring money from Kerouacs’ account(s) to their personal accounts and
using Kerouacs’ money to pay for personal expenses.
93. The Individual Defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties caused Plaintiff
damages of at least $265,000, plus pre-judgment interest and attorneys fees and costs.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendants Steve Tsonis and Ryan Kowalis, jointly and
severally, in an amount to be proven at trial, including actual damages, pre-judgment interest,
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus all further relief deemed equitable and just.
COUNT IV – Breach of Eggum SPA
(vs. Kerouacs)
94. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 94 of Count IV.
95. The Eggum SPA required Kerouacs to make the Eggum Incentive Payments of 5%
of revenue on a monthly basis, barred Kerouacs’ officers from transferring money to themselves
and barred them from making preferential shareholder distributions.
96. By failing and refusing to pay the Eggum Incentive Payments and transferring
money to the Individual Defendants without Eggum’s authorization breached the Eggum SPA.
97. Kerouacs’ breach of the Eggum SPA has caused Plaintiff damages of at least
$100,000, plus pre-judgment interest and attorneys fees and costs.
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendant Kerouacs, Inc. in an amount to be proven at trial,
including actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus all further relief
deemed equitable and just.
COUNT V – Breach of Contract – Second Eggum Agreement
(vs. Individual Defendants)
98. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 98 of Count V.
99. The Second Agreement required Kerouacs and Tsonis to make Additional Eggum
Incentive Payments of $5,000 twice per month from September 1, 2018 through March 1, 2019.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
See Ex. D, Section II (2). Tsonis also agreed to personally guarantee payment to Plaintiff.
100. Kerouacs and Tsonis both failed to make the Additional Eggum Payments, which
constituted a breach of the Second Agreement.
101. Kerouacs’ and Tsonis’ breach of the Second Agreement caused Plaintiff damages
of at least $65,000, plus pre-judgment interest and attorneys fees and costs.
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendant Kerouacs, Inc. and Steve Tsonis, jointly and severally,
in an amount to be proven at trial, including actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’
fees and costs, plus all further relief deemed equitable and just.
COUNT VI – Civil Conspiracy
(vs. Individual Defendants)
102. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 102 of Count VI.
103. The Individual Defendants agreed amongst themselves to take and did take
concerted action to: 1) fraudulently induce Plaintiff and Ruiz to transfer funds to Kerouacs; 2)
fraudulently induce Plaintiff to enter into the APA; and 3) convert funds from Kerouacs.
104. The Individual Defendants took action in furtherance of their conspiracy, the
purpose of which was to convince Plaintiff to invest money in Kerouacs so that the Individual
Defendants could convert the funds for their own personal uses.
105. The Individual Defendants succeeded in their conspiracy and Plaintiff suffered
harm as a result.
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendant Kerouacs, Inc. and Steve Tsonis, jointly and severally,
in an amount to be proven at trial, including actual damages, pre-judgment interest, punitive
damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus all further relief deemed equitable and just.
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
COUNT VII – Illinois Deceptive Practices Act
(vs. Individual Defendants)
106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as paragraph 106 of Count VII.
107. The Individual Defendants have committed various deceptive acts in violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, including making
misrepresentations to Plaintiff to induce him to make investments into Kerouacs, presenting
Plaintiff with incomplete and misleading financial records of Kerouacs in order to conceal
improper transfers/expenditures and sweeping Kerouacs’ accounts and then telling Plaintiff that
Kerouacs did not have sufficient funds to make payments owed Plaintiff.
108. The Individual Defendants intended for Plaintiff to rely on these deceptive acts and
Plaintiff did rely on these deceptive acts.
109. Individual Defendants’ deceptions occurred during the course of trade or commerce
and proximately caused Plaintiff to incur significant damages.
For relief, Plaintiff Michael Eggum respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendant Kerouacs, Inc. and Steve Tsonis, jointly and severally,
in an amount to be proven at trial, including actual damages, pre-judgment interest, punitive
damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, plus all further relief deemed equitable and just.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Michael Eggum, demands trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL EGGUM
FILED DATE: 3/15/2021 5:34 PM 2021L002849
By: / /s/ James L. Oakley______
One of His Attorneys
James L. Oakley
Todd A. Rowden
Patrick Wartan
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60601
joakley@taftlaw.com
trownden@taftlaw.com
pwartan@taftlaw.com
Firm I.D. No. 29143
