IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

KIM DENKEWALTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN EVERETT THOMAS, individually;

DANIEL OLSWANG, individually; FREEDOM

DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company, and all series thereof

(FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC –

87TH STREET; FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT

GROUP, LLC – AURORA; FREEDOM

DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC – NORTH

AVENUE; FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT

GROUP, LLC – PITTSFIELD; FREEDOM

DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC – STARVED

ROCK MARINA; FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT

GROUP, LLC – WAUKEGAN); FREEDOM

DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC – ELGIN

HOSPITAL, a dissolved Illinois limited liability

company; FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT GROUP,

LLC – ROUND LAKE, a dissolved Illinois limited

liability company; JET PARK, LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company; 901 CENTER STREET

HOLDINGS LLC, an Illinois limited liability

company; JET HOSPITALS LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company; TOT Holdings I LLC, an

Illinois limited liability company; TOT Holdings II

LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; STAR

REAL ESTATE, LLC, a terminated Illinois limited

liability company; JET FOODS LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company; JET FOODS BISHOP

LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; JET

FOODS CAROL STREAM LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company; JET FOODS HARVEY

LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; JET

FOODS NAPERVILLE LLC, an Illinois limited

liability company; JET FOODS OAKTON LLC, an

Illinois limited liability company; JET FOODS

PARK FOREST LLC, an Illinois limited liability

company; JET FOODS ROCKFORD LLC, an

Illinois limited liability company; and JET

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-5013

Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

JURY DEMANDED

Remely and Hansen’s Reply to 

Defendants Opposition to Motion to 

Consolidate

Case: 1:20-cv-05013 Document #: 72 Filed: 10/04/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1189
2 

STRUCTURES LLC, an Illinois limited liability

company,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DARREL REMILY and RANDAL HANSEN, ) 

 )

 Plaintiffs, )

v. ) Case No: 1:20-cv-7324

 )

FREEDOM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, an ) Hon. Franklin U. Valderrama

Illinois limited liability company; JET PARK, LLC, )

An Illinois limited liability company; 901 CENTER ) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

STREET HOLDINGS LLC, an Illinois limited ) 

liability company; JET HOSPITALS LLC, a ) JURY DEMANDED

terminated Illinois limited liability company, STAR )

REAL ESTATE, LLC, a terminated Illinois limited )

liability company; JOHN THOMAS, individually; )

KIM DENKEWALTER, individually; and )

DANIEL OLSWANG, individually, )

 )

 Defendants. ) 

PLAINTIFFS REMILY AND HANSEN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION

TO MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CASES 1:20-cv-07324 and 1:20-cv-05013

Plaintiffs, DARREL REMILY and RANDAL HANSEN, (“Remily and Hansen”)

reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate as follows: 

1. Defendants first assert that both cases have Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act or “RICO” violation claims with pending motions to dismiss which 

if the Court rules favorably to Defendants, the Court will then not have federal 

jurisdiction. The Defendants contend that Plaintiffs base their jurisdictional federal 

claims exclusively on 28 U.S.C §1331, 1332 and 18 U.S.C.§ 1962 and 1964 the RICO 

Statute. Defendants are incorrect in their assertion in that even in the unlikely event 

that Defendants were to prevail, and the RICO claims are dismissed, the Court would 

not loose jurisdiction as Remily, and Hansen reside in South Dakota thus the Court 

would still have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1332. Because Remily and 

Hansen reside out of state they have also pled diversity as a jurisdictional basis in their 

complaint; consequently, the Court would not loose federal jurisdiction as incorrectly 

asserted by Defendants in their Response. 

2. Defendants then assert that the facts asserted in both complaints are not similar and 

attempt to distinguish the Remily, Hansen and Denkewalter claims as mere breach of 

contract claims which Defendants allege are unrelated and “tangential to the main 

issues in the case”. While both complaints include breach of contract counts in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05013 Document #: 72 Filed: 10/04/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1190
3

alternative, independent and interrelated to the breach of contract claims, the 

Plaintiffs, Remily, Hansen and Denkewalter allege that Plaintiffs engaged in a pattern 

of predicate acts including a scheme to defraud comprising of repeated acts of wire 

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (the “Wire Fraud Statute”). Both complaints 

allege that Defendants John Everest Thomas and Daniel Olswang (collectively 

“Thomas and Olswang”) perpetrated predicate acts involving a pattern of interstate 

wire fraud against each of Remily, Hansen and Denkewalter, (a) using wire 

communications in interstate commerce to defraud lenders, service providers, and 

business associates out of (i) funds loaned and entrusted to them, and (ii) property 

interests to which they were not entitled; and (b) surreptitiously diverting such funds 

and interests to Thomas and Olswang and their companies. Contrary to Defendants’ 

contention, the RICO and other claims asserted in both complaints are similar and 

warrant consolidation. 

3. Defendants next assert that consolidation would subject Defendants to “extreme 

prejudice"; however, Defendants make only conclusory statements of unspecified 

hypothetical prejudice. Defendants fail to list one example of how they would be 

disadvantaged or prejudiced. Defendants provide a list the parties in the respective 

complaints but fail to specify how consolidation would prejudice them in the least. 

The reality is that the two cases the Plaintiffs have identical RICO claims against the 

same Defendants. The primary Defendants are the same in both cases that being John 

Everest Thomas, Daniel Olswang and Freedom Development Group, LLC who are as 

alleged in both complaints the owners and managers of the other named party 

Defendants. Defendants note that some entities named in the Denkewalter complaint 

are not named as party Defendants in the Remily and Hansen complaint; however, 

both complaints allege that each of the other party defendants is an alter ego of 

Thomas and Olswang that are alleged in both complaints to be the owners and

managers of all named Defendants who implemented a scheme of wire fraud through 

interstate commerce to deprive Plaintiffs, Remily, Hansen and Denkewalter of monies 

and assets for their personal gain. 

To allay Defendants’ concern that the named Defendants are not identical in both 

complaints, upon consolidation, Plaintiffs Remily and Hansen will amend their

complaint and dismiss Denkewalter as a party Defendant at which time Remily and 

Hansen will name and serve the missing alter ego Defendants to match the named 

Defendants in both cases completely. 

In conclusion, in both cases Plaintiffs’ claims involve violations of the RICO statute 

alleging that Defendants, engaged in a pattern of conduct using U.S mail and wire 

communications in interstate commerce to defraud defendants and both cases involve 

common questions of fact in that in each case the Defendants borrowed money from the 

Plaintiffs for specific projects which projects were aborted and instead of returning the funds 

to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants engaged in a pattern of systematically diverting the fund for 

Case: 1:20-cv-05013 Document #: 72 Filed: 10/04/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1191
4 

their own personal use and their business interests. Consequently, judicial convenience and 

economy will be promoted by consolidation of the two cases. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Juan M. Soliz 

Juan M. Soliz, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs Remily and Hansen

3203 S. Pulaski Rd 

Chicago, IL 60623 

(773) 277-6155 

lawsoliz@sbcglobal.net 

Attorney No. 3123126 

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

I, Juan M. Soliz, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of. the Plaintiff’s Reply to 

Opposition to Consolidation was electronically filed using this Court's CM/ECF system. 

Notice of this filing will be sent via email and by electronic mail to all parties by operation of 

the Courts CM/ ECF system. Parties may access, the filing through the Court's electronic 

filing system.

October 2, 2022 

 

 /s/Juan M. Soliz 

 Juan M. Soliz 

Juan M. Soliz, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs Remily and Hansen 

3203 S. Pulaski Rd 

Chicago, IL 60623 

(773) 277-6155 

lawsoliz@sbcglobal.net

Attorney No. 3123126 

Case: 1:20-cv-05013 Document #: 72 Filed: 10/04/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1192