1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

J. Henk Taylor (016321)

RYAN RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 280-1000

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495

E-Mail: htaylor@rrulaw.com 

Jeffrey M. Eilender (admitted pro hac vice)

Bradley J. Nash (admitted pro hac vice)

Joshua Wurtzel (admitted pro hac vice)

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP

26 Broadway

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 344-5400

Facsimile: (212) 344-7677

E-Mail: jeilender@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: bnash@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: jwurtzel@schlamstone.com 

Attorneys for Defendants CWT Canada II Limited

Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, and

Jean Noelting

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff,

v.

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, CWT 

Canada II Limited Partnership, Resources 

Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:17-CV-04140-DWL

CWT PARTIES’ MOTION 

TO STRIKE

And related claims.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 228 Filed 09/13/19 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, 

and Jean Noelting (collectively, the “CWT Parties”) move this Court under Rule 

7.2(m)(1) of the Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona for 

entry of an order striking Wyo Tech’s “Supplement to Clarify the Record Re: Denial of 

Motion for Recusal Filed by Non-Parties” [dkt. no. 227]. 

This motion is supported by the following memorandum of points and authorities 

and the Declaration of Joshua Wurtzel. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

“A party may move to strike ‘any part of a filing or submission on the ground that 

it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.’” Ray v. LM Gen. Ins. 

Co., 2019 WL 4081145, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2019) (quoting L.R. Civ. 7.2(m)).

On September 12, 2019, Wyo Tech filed what is functionally a post-decision 

objection to this Court’s decision [dkt. no. 209] denying 14 nonparty subpoena recipients’ 

(collectively, the “Subpoenaed Individuals”) motion for recusal. (Dkt. No. 227). In this 

filing, Wyo Tech “takes issue with certain gratuitous statements of the Court” in its 

recusal decision, and calls various conclusions in this decision “not valid,” “unnecessary,” 

“unwarranted,” “presumptuous,” and “insulting.” (Id.). Wyo Tech further states that it has 

“serious concerns about why the Court would gratuitously make such unnecessary and 

unwarranted comments along with other such prior comments if the Court is truly 

impartial,” and “wish[es] the record to reflect such concerns for the future.” (Id.).

This Court should strike Wyo Tech’s post-decision objection from the record, 

because a party is not authorized by any statute, rule, or court order to submit additional 

argument or facts merely to “clarify the record.” (See id. at 1).

Further, Wyo Tech’s post-decision objection—whether intentionally or 

carelessly—is misleading and confuses, rather than clarifies, the record. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 228 Filed 09/13/19 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

Wyo Tech complains that, in its decision denying the recusal motion, this Court 

stated that Wyo Tech’s and its counsel’s “coordination raises the possibility that Wyo 

Tech is using the Subpoenaed Individuals as a stalking horse to evade the time limits on 

recusal motions.” (Dkt. No. 227 at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 209 at 6 n.5)). Specifically, in its 

decision, this Court observed, among other things, that the “proposed order granting the 

recusal motion was emailed to the Court’s chambers email address by Wyo Tech’s 

counsel, not by the Subpoenaed Individuals’ counsel.” (Dkt. No. 209 at 6 n.5). 

Wyo Tech takes umbrage with the Court’s suggestion that Wyo Tech was possibly

behind the recusal motion and utilized the Subpoenaed Individuals as a “stalking horse”. 

In its objection, Wyo Tech argues that its counsel’s legal assistant e-mailed the proposal 

recusal order “solely as a favor to Carol Davis, Mr. Zlaket’s assistant, because she asked 

Ms. Myers to do so because Ms. Davis had forgotten to send it to the Court and was no 

longer in her office and did not have access to her computer.” (Dkt. No. 227 at 2). Wyo 

Tech further argues that its counsel was “not even aware” of their legal assistant’s purelyministerial assistance, so there was “no basis—or reason—for the Court to have 

gratuitously inferred any negative connotation from this simple act of professional 

courtesy.” (Id. at 2-3). Thus, Wyo Tech purports to express outrage and incredulity that 

this Court inferred that it was functionally behind the recusal motion, and suggests that 

this inference shows this Court’s bias against it. (See id.).

But recently-produced documents from a purported Wyo Tech investor show that 

Wyo Tech and its counsel not only helped with the preparation of the recusal motion—

they were the driving force behind it. Attached to the Wurtzel Declaration as Exhibit A is 

an e-mail chain dated August 16, 2019—six days before Mr. Zlaket appeared in this case 

and filed the recusal motion for the Subpoenaed Individuals. In these emails, Wyo Tech’s 

counsel discusses and appears to have prepared a “draft objection we can ask zlaket to 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 228 Filed 09/13/19 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

file” and further discusses “setting up a meeting with Zlaket for Monday [August 19] to 

discuss this and the motion for recusal as you requested.” Bill Hinz, Wyo Tech’s CEO, 

then forwards this chain—along with a letter from Wyo Tech’s counsel stating that “Wyo 

Tech has retained the Honorable Thomas Zlaket to represent all Wyo Tech shareholder 

interests as it relates to this matter”—to purported Wyo Tech investors, stating that “we

are going to file a motion to have a Judge recuse himself for legal reasons.” (Wurtzel 

Decl. Ex. A (emphasis added)).

1

Thus the Court’s speculation about Wyo Tech’s and its counsel’s “coordination” 

with the Subpoenaed Individuals was dead on. And Wyo Tech’s post-decision objection is 

misleading and does not “clarify” anything in the record.

CONCLUSION

This Court should strike from the record Wyo Tech’s “Supplement to Clarify the 

Record Re: Denial of Motion for Recusal Filed by Non-Parties” (Dkt. No. 227).

 1 Wyo Tech waived any purported privilege over this communication by forwarding it to 

its purported investors.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 228 Filed 09/13/19 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

Dated:September 13, 2019

Phoenix, Arizona

Respectfully submitted,

RYAN RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.

By: /s/ Henk Taylor (016321)

J. Henk Taylor (016321)

3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 1600

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 280-1000

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495

E-Mail: htaylor@rrulaw.com

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP

Jeffrey M. Eilender (admitted pro hac 

 vice)

Bradley J. Nash (admitted pro hac vice)

Joshua Wurtzel (admitted pro hac vice)

26 Broadway

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 344-5400

Facsimile: (212) 344-7677

E-Mail: jeilender@schlamstone.com

E-Mail: bnash@schlamstone.com

E-Mail: jwurtzel@schlamstone.com 

Attorneys for Defendants CWT Canada II 

Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery 

Corporation, and Jean Noelting

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 228 Filed 09/13/19 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

ORIGINAL e-filed and COPIES

e-mailed this 13th day of September

2019 as follows:

Dennis I. Wilenchik

Tyler Swenson

Chris Meyers

Chris Feasel

WILENCHIK & BARTNESS P.C.

2810 North Third Street

Phoenix, AZ 85004

E-Mail: diw@wb-law.com

E-Mail: tylers@wb-law.com

E-Mail: chrism@wb-law.com

E-Mail: chrisf@wb-law.com 

Leo R. Beus

BEUS GILBERT PLLC

701 North 44th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85008

E-Mail: lbeus@beusgilbert.com

Attorneys for Wyo Tech Investment 

Group, LLC

/s/ Henk Taylor

Henk Taylor

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 228 Filed 09/13/19 Page 6 of 6