EXHIBIT B 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 47
From: Bill Hinz 

To: 

Cc: 

David Timchak 

Cipdavis2017 

Subject: Fw: Fwd: RE: to doc"s you shared with me, legal and Dennis (a m 

Date: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:40:33 PM 

Attachments: US District Court.pdf 

David , attached is the Subpoena and naturally he does not want to be deposed on the 28th at 

5. 

that said he does not want any additional legal action by not responding 

Bill 

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Bill Hinz" <hinzbill@yahoo.com> 

To: "Dennis M. Danzik" <dmdanzik@gmail.com> 

Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2: 19 PM 

Subject: Fw: Fwd: RE: to doc's you shared with me, legal and Dennis (am 

attached is chucks subpoena. 

Bill Hinz 

----- Forwarded Message-----

From: "cjpdavis2017" <cjpdavis2017@gmail.com> 

To: "hinzbill@yahoo.com" <hinzbill@yahoo.com> 

Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1 :45 PM 

Subject: Fwd: RE: to doc's you shared with me, legal and Dennis (a m 

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G L TE Device 

-------- Original message --------

From: Charles Davis <cjpdavis@centurylink.net> 

Date: 2/21/19 7:28 PM (GMT-07:00) 

To: 'Bill Hinz' <hinz@ie.energy> 

Cc: 'cjpdavis2017' <cjpdavis2017@gmail.com> 

Subject: RE: to doc's you shared with me, legal and Dennis (a memorandum in 

response) 

My subpoena, come from the Court ... so you must of got something different 

cd 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 47
From: Charles Davis <cjpdavis@centurylink.net> 

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:57 PM 

To: 'Bill Hinz' <hinz@ie.energy> 

Cc: 'cjpdavis2017' <cjpdavis2017@gmail.com> 

Subject: FW: to doc's you shared with me, legal and Dennis (a memorandum in 

response) 

Letter/note dated 2-12-19 

cd 

From: Charles Davis <cjpdavis@centurylink.net> 

Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:44 PM 

To: 'Dennis Danzik' <danzik@ie.energy>; 'Bill Hinz' <hinz@ie.energy>; 

'hinzbill@yahoo.com' <hinzbill@yahoo.com> 

Cc: 'cjpdavis2017' <cjpdavis2017@gmail.com> 

Subject: to doc's you shared with me, legal and Dennis (a memorandum in response) 

Dennis and Bill 

In the meeting today (9am IEC, Bills office) I was given the two attached doc's. 

1)1 was also told that you would be sending the 2 (same letters you shared with me) out 

to all investors, TODAY. 

2)Also that 3 others were also been served subpoenas. 

3) that you and Bill, will be receiving additional letters/information from "Dennis I. 

Wiienchik" the attorney that drafted the one legal letter. And you will be sharing that 

with us ASAP. 

4) this letter will be letting me know what steps I should take and any others that have 

been served or will be served. 

5) also you informed me that this matter has a court date set for 8-6-19, by Judge 

Campell. And this comi date was set 1-29-19 

Dennis you went on to say that you will be meeting Jack Rasor for lunch in the next few 

days. That we have a ALTERA TOR built in house that we will be getting patents on. I 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 3 of 47
believe you said that Jennining, Strauss law firm would be doing the work on the 

patents. Also that I can come back 2-19-19 and you will have a show and tell with the 

earth engine making POWER. 

Good luck on your lunch with Jack, you are a good man for doing that. I feel it is in our 

best interest that we move ahead with clear and clean books and plan that works for all 

and not just a few. A clear book keeping system is a great place to start. 

Can we invite a few other investors on Tuesday to see what you have planned for me to 

see. 

Please send over the Wilenchik's instructions as soon as you get them. 

Please and thank you 

Chuck 

Charles J Davis 

I KNEEL/or the CROSS, and STAND for the FLAG 

The most dangerous phrase in any language "we've always done it this way" 

Charles (CHUCK) Davis 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 4 of 47
/\0 88B {Rev 02/14) Subpoena to Prnducc Documents, Information, or Oh.icets or to Permit lnspcetion of l'rl·m1sts in a Civil Action 

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT 

for the 

District of Arizona 

Wells Fargo Bank, NA ·------ ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

To: 

l'/ai11tif( 

V. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04140-DWL 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, et al. 

Deje11dan1 

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OB.JECTS 

OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION 

Charles J. Davls and Richard W. Davis 

2552 East Los Alamos Street, Gilbert, Arizona 85295 ------,- ........................ ··---

(Name o_(person 10 whom rhis subpoena is direcred) 

~ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following 

documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection. copying, testing. or sampling of the 

material: 

See attached Appendix A 

LRyan Rapp & Underwood, P.L.C. I Date and Time: ___ _ 

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250 02/28/2019 5: 00 pm 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 ·-·-····--------~---~-

□ Inspectio11 of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land. or 

other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, elate, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party 

may inspect. measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. 

----~•••••••••-•------~-•---•------- "'°'-~"••••••"""-"".,,"-""""""'-"'''-"•••••w-•••• 

i Date and Time: 

The following provisions of Ped. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached - Rule 45(c). relating to the place of compliance; 

Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 4S(e) and (g), relating to your duty to 

respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. 

Date: 02/04/2019 

CLERK OF COURT 

OR 

Sig!lalure of Clerk or Deputy Clerk .1llorney 's signa111re 

The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing /name ofparM CWT Canada 11 

Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation. Jean Noelting ____ , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: 

Joshua Wurtzel, Schlam Stone, 26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004; jwurtzel@schlamstone.com; (212) 344-5400 

Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena 

If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the 

inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before 

it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4S(a)(4). 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 5 of 47
AO 88B (Rev. 02/!4) Subpoena to ProJuce Documcnls, Information, or Objects or w Permit Inspection or Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2) 

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04140-DWL 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(Tit is section should 110! be.filed witlt the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) 

l received this subpoena for (n.:ime of i11divid11af and fille, 1/anyJ 

on (date) 

0 T served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: 

on (darn) ; or 

0 [ returned the subpoena unexecuted because: 

Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, l have also 

tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of 

$ 

My fees are$ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00 

I declare under penalty of pctjury that this information is true. 

Date: 

Server ·s signa/11/"e 

Printed name and title 

Sel'ver 's address 

Additionai information regarding attcrnptcd service, etc.: 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 6 of 47
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce DocumcnLs, Information, or Objcets or to Permit lnspcetion ofPmniscs in a Civil Action(Pagc 3) 

Fedel'al Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) 

{c) Place of Compliance. 

(I) For a Trial, lle11ri11g, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follC1ws: 

(A) within l 00 miles ofwhcr1a the person resides. is employed, or 

regularly transacts business in person; or 

(B) within the stare where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 

transacts business in pason. if the person 

(i) is a pany or a party's oniccr; or 

(ii) is corrnnand.:d to altcnd a trial and would not incur substantial 

expense. 

(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: 

{A) prod,iction (lf documents, cle.ctronical!y stored information, or 

tangible things at a place wilhin I 00 miles of where the person resides, is 

employed, or regularly transm:ts business in person; and 

(B) inspection of premises at the premises lo be inspected. 

(d) Protec!ing a Person Subj~ct to a Subpoena; Enf(wcemcnt. 

(!) A1•oidi11g Umlltt! Burden <Jr E:,;pe11se; Sanctions. A party or attorney 

rcsponsibk for issuing and serving a subpoena must lnkc reasonable steps 

to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the 

subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must 

enforce this duty and impose an appropriat<: sanction-whid1 may include 

lost l.!arnings and n:asonabk attorm:y·s fees-on a party or attorney who 

foils to comply. 

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit l11spectio11. 

(A) Appeara11ce Nol Required. A person con11nanded to produce 

documents, electronically stored information. or tangible things, or to 

permit llic inspection of premises, need not appear in p"rson al tile plac<! of 

production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, 

hearing. or trial. 

(B) Ob.fectio11s. i\ person commanded to produce docum~nts or tangible 

things or to permit inspection may serve 011 the party or attorney designated 

in the subpoena a written objection lo inspecting, copying. testing. or 

sampling any or all of the materinls or to inspecting the premiscs-<ir to 

producing electronically stored information in the fonn or fom1s requested. 

The objection must be served before the earlier orthe lime specified for 

compliance or 14 days aflcr the subpoena is served. !fan objection is made, 

the following rules apply: 

(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party 

may move the court liir the district where compliance is required for an 

order compelling production or inspection. 

(ii) These acts may be n::quircd only as directed in the onlcr, and the 

order must protect a person who is neither a pany nor a pany· s officer from 

significant expense resulting from compliance. 

(3) Q11as!ti11g or Motlij)•i11g a Subpoena. 

(A) When Requir!!d. On timely motion. the court for the district where 

compliance is required must quash or modif)• a subpoena rhat: 

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; 

{ii) rcqnircs a person to comply beyond the geographical I imits 

spccifkd in Rule 45(c); 

(iii) requires t!isdosurc ofprivikgcd or other protected maucr. ifno 

exception or waiver applies; or 

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. 

(B) When Permitted To protect a person subject to or aftcctcd by a subpoena. the court for the tlistrict where compliance is required may, on 

motion. quash or mod if'), the subpoena if it requires: 

(i) disclosing a trndc secret or otlwr confidential n:scarch. 

development, or commercial information; or 

(ii) disclosing an unrctaincd expert's opinion or infonnation thnt docs 

not describe specific occuJTcnces in dispute und rcsulL~ from the expert's 

study that was not requested by a party. 

(C) Spec{/j:ing Co11di11011s as an Alternative. 111 the circumstances 

dcscrib~d in Ruic 45(d)(3)(B). the court may, inst~ad of quashing or 

modi lying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified 

conditions if the serving party; 

(i) shows n substantial need for the testimony or mmcrial thai cannot be 

otherwise me! wi(hout undue hardship; and 

(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. 

(c) Duties in Rcspnn<ling to a Subpoena. 

(I) Prod11ci11g Doc11me11ts or Electro11ically Stored /11formatio11. These 

procedures apply to producing documents or clcctronicnlly stored 

information: 

(A) Documents. A person responding to n subpoena to produce documents 

must produce them as 1hcy arc kept in the ordinary course of business or 

must organize and label them to com,spond to the c:Hcgorics in the dcmand. 

(B) Form/or Producing E!ectro11ical(v Srored lnfon11afio11 Not Spec/lied 

If a subpoena docs not specify a form for producing elcctrnnii.:nlly stored 

information. the person responding must produce it in a form or f<.x111s in 

which it is ordinarilv maintained or in a reasonably usable form or form~. 

(C) Electronim/6• Stored li/for111alio11 Produce;i in 011/y One Form. The 

person responding need not produce the s,unc electronically stored 

infonnation m mon: tlwn one lorn1. 

(D) inaccessible Elec1ronica!!y Stored lnfor111ario11. The person 

responding need not provide discov.::ry ofdectronically stored information 

from sourccs that the person identities as not reasonably accessible because 

ot'undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protcctiw 

ord.:r, the person responding mus! show that the infonnation is not 

reasonably aceessibk because or undue burden or cost. !ftliat showing is 

madc, the court may nonetheless orda discovery from sud1 scmrccs if the 

requesting pHrty shows good cause. considering the limitations of Ruic 

26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovccy. 

(2) Claiming Pril>ilege or Protection. 

(A) h1(ormation Withheld A person withholding subpoenaed information 

under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection ns trial-preparation 

material must: 

(i) expressly make !he claim; and 

(ii) describe the nature ot'lhe withheld documents, comnHmications. or 

tangible things in a m,mncr that. without revealing information itself 

privileged or protected. will enable the parties to assess the daim. 

(R) fnfor111alio11 Produc('d, lfinfonnation produced in response to a 

subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or ot' protection as 

trial-preparation material. the person making the claim may notif}' any pany 

that received the information of'thc claim and the basis for it. Aller being 

notified. a party must prnmptly return. sequester, or d.:stroy the specified 

information and any copies it has: must not use or disclose the information 

until the daim is rcsolwd; must take reasonable steps to n::lricve tht 

infonnalion iflhc party disclosed it before being notified: anti may promptly 

present the information under seal to the court for the district where 

compliance is required for a tktcnnination of'lhc claim. The person who 

produced the information must prcs.::rvc the information until the claim is 

rcsol\'cd. 

(g) Contempt. 

The court for the district where compliance is requircd--and also. aficr a 

motion is transforred, the issuing court-may hold in contempt a person 

who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse lo obey the 

subpoena or an order related to it. 

r-or access to subpoena matcriuls. sec !'ed. R. Civ. P. 4S(a) CocmmUcc Nate (2013) 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 7 of 47
2 

,., 

.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

:w 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

APPENDIX A 

DEFINITIONS 

l. "All" means all or any, and "any" means all or any. 

2. ·'And'' and ''or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as 

necessary to bring within the scope of these requests all responses that might othenvise be 

construed to be outside of its scope. 

3. "Communication" means the transmittai of infonnation (in the fonn of facts, 

ideas, inquiries; or othenvise ). 

4. 

5. 

"DAS" means Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC. 

"Documenf' or "documents'' means all enumerated items in Rule 

34( a)( 1 )( A) of the \Vyoming Rules of Civi I Procedure, including Electronically-Stored 

Information, as defined below. A draft or non-identical copy of any document, whether 

due to the addition of marginalia or other change, is a separate document within the 

meaning of this term. When the electronic and hard copy versions of any document are 

separate documents under this definition, both the electronic and hard copy versions 

should be produced. 

6. "Electronically-Stored Information" or "EST'' includes, but is not limited to, 

the following: 

a. infonnation or data that is generated, received, processed, or recorded 

by computers or other electronic devices, including, but not limited to1 communications 

over a Bloomberg Terminal, electronic mail, text messages, instant message service 

messages, Social Media Posts, and voicemail; 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 8 of 47
2 

,., 

.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

l l 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. files, information. or data saved on backup tapes or hard drives; 

C. internal or external vveb sites; 

d. output resulting from the use of any software program. including, but 

not limited to, word processing documents, spreadsheets, database files, charts, graphs and 

outlines, electronic mail, instant messenger (or similar programs), bulletin board 

programs, operating systems, source code, PRF files, PRC files. batch files, ASCII files, 

and all miscellaneous media on which they reside regardless of whether this electronic 

data exists in an active file, a deleted file, or file fragment; and 

e. activity listings of electronic mail receipts or transmittals: and any 

and all items stored on computer memories, hard disks, floppy disks, CD-ROM, magnetic 

tape, microfiche, or on any other media for digital data storage. or transmittal, including, 

but not limited to, personal digital assistants ( e.g., iPhone, iPad), band-held wireless 

devices (e.g., BlackBerrys). or similar devices, and file folder tabs, or containers and 

labels appended to, or relating to, any physical storage device associated with each 

original or copy of all documents in these requests. 

7. "Include" or "including'' denotes a portion of a larger whole, and is used 

without limitation. 

8. "Inductance'' means Inductance Energy Corporation. 

9. "Person'' means any natural person or any business, legal, or governmental 

entity. or association. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 9 of 47
2 

,,., 

.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

]6 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

l 0. ·'Relating to" means in whole or in part, concerning, constituting, 

containing, evidencing, referring to, discussing, dealing with, describing, reflecting, or 

pertaining to in any way whatsoever. 

11. 

12. 

·'RDX'' means RDX Technologies Corporation. 

"Social Media Posts'' means any message-whether in the form of words or 

graphics-made using a website, application, program, or software that allows the user to 

share a message with one or more other persons, regardless of the number of persons (if 

any) with whom that message is actually shared and regardless of whether that message 

may be accessed by the public. For the avoidance of doubt, "Social Media Posts" does not 

include communications over a Bloomberg Tem1inal, electronic mail, text messages, 

instant message service messages, or voicemail. 

13. 

14. 

I 5. 

L 

''Solverdi" means Sol verdi V..1 orldwide Corporation. 

"Wyo Tech" means Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC. 

"You'' or ''Your'' means Charles J. Davis and Richard W. Davis. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The relevant time period to vvhich each request refers is January 1, 2016 

through the date of production. 

2. The past tense form shall be constrned to include the present tense, and vice 

versa, whenever such a dual construction will serve to bring within the scope of a request 

any response that would otherwise not be within its scope. 

3. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and vice versa. 

2 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 10 of 47
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

l l 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

l7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. Each catego1y of documents in these requests extends to any and all 

documents in Your possession, custody, or control. A document shall be deemed to be in 

Your possession. custody. or control if it is in Your physical custody, or if it is in the 

physical custody of any other person and You (a) own such document in whole or in part; 

or (b) have a right by contract, statute, or otherwise to use, inspect, examine, or copy such 

document; or ( c) have an understanding, express or implied, that You may use, inspect 

examine, or copy such document; or ( d) as a practical matter, have been able to use, 

inspect, examine, or copy such document. Such documents shall include, but are not 

limited to, documents that are in the custody of any of Your attorneys, representatives, or 

other agents. 

5. All requests for the production of documents shall be construed to include 

any additional documents responsive to these requests that are discovered or produced 

after the date of production. 

6. All documents should be produced in the order in which they appear in the 

files of the producing party, organized by source, and should contain a clear indication of 

where each document ends and the next begins. Documents maintained in a file folder or 

binder should be preceded by the file folder or binder label, if one exists, and should 

contain a clear indication of where the file folder or binder begins and ends. All 

attachments to a document should be produced Vlith the document. A unique bates number 

should be affixed to each page. 

7. A 11 documents, including documents that originated in electronic fonn or in 

hard copy fom1, should be produced electronically in pdf fonnat. Each individual 

3 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 11 of 47
2 

,., 

.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

JO 

I l 

l2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

document should be produced as its own pdf. Each pdf should be labeled with the bates 

number of the first page of that document. 

8. Metadata, including, but not limited to, bates number, custodian, author, 

to/from/cc/bee, subject, sent date, and file date, that can be extracted from a document 

shall be produced for that document, to the extent already in existence and reasonably 

accessible or available. 

9. If You object to the production of any document or tangible thing within the 

scope of the requests, You must fully set forth your objections in writing, provide a list of 

all such documents and tangible things being withheld, and state the following for each 

such document or tangible thing: (i) the designated bates number, if any; (ii) the type of 

document, e.g., letter or memorandum; (iii) the general subject matter of the document; 

(iv) the date of the document; (v) the location and custodian of the document: and (vi) the 

author of the document the addressee of the document, any other recipients shmvn in the 

document, and, when not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and 

recipients to each other. 

10. If any document that You are requested to produce or identify was at one 

time in existence, but has been lost, discarded, or destroyed, identify in ,vriting each 

document and provide the following information: (a) the date or approximate date it was 

lost, discarded, or destroyed; (b) the circumstances and manner in which it was lost, 

discarded, or destroyed; ( c) the reason or reasons for disposing of the document (if 

discarded or destroyed); ( d) the identity of all persons authorizing the document and 

having knowledge of the document; ( e) the identity of the persons who lost. discarded, or 

4 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 12 of 47
2 

,, 

.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

I 5 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

')') 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

destroyed the document; (f) the identity of any persons having knowledge of the contents 

of the document; and (g) a detailed summary of the nature and contents of the document, 

including the author(s) of the clocument(s), the name of the person(s) to whom the 

document(s) was (were) delivered or addressed, including indicated or blind copy 

recipients, the date of the document( s ), and a description of the subject matter, including 

any attachment or appendices, and the number of pages. 

11. If You object in whole or in part to any request based on a claim of 

privilege, provide a list of the documents being withheld and for each such document: 

(a) state the nature of the privilege which is being claimed and, if the privilege is governed 

by state law, which state's privilege rule is being invoked: and (b) provide a description of 

the document, including (i) the designated bates number, if any; (ii) the type of document, 

e.g., letter or memorandum; (iii) the general subject matter of the document; (iv) the date 

of the document; (v) the location and custodian of the document; and (vi) the author of the 

document, the addressee of the document, any other recipients shown in the document, 

and, when not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each 

other. 

12. If any of these documents cannot be produced in full, You are requested to 

produce them to the fullest extent possible, specifying clearly the reasons for Your 

inability to produce the remainder and stating any information, knowledge, or be! ief You 

have concerning the unproduced portion. 

13. The specificity of any request shall not be construed to limit the generality 

or reach of .:1ny other request. 

5 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 13 of 47
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 

2 

L All documents concerning Your investment in Wyo Tech, including, but not ,.., 

J 

4 

limited to, the purported investment reflected in the check attached as Exhibit A. 

5 2. Documents sufficient to show the source of all funds You invested in V,/yo 

6 Tech. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

l l 

12 

13 

14 

15 

,.., 

.) . All documents concerning Your investment in Inductance. 

4. Documents sufficient to show the source of all funds You invested in 

Inductance. 

5. Documents sufficient to show all Persons that have an ownership interest, 

direct or indirect, in Wyo Tech or Inductance. 

6. 

7. 

All documents provided to You by Wyo Tech or Inductance. 

All communications between You. on the one hand, and \Villiam J. Hinz, on 

16 the other hand, conceming Wyo Tech or Inductance. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8. All documents, including communications, between You, on the one hand, 

and Dennis M. Danzik, Elizabeth J. Danzik, Jovahna Danzik, or Autumn Danzik, on the 

other hand. 

9. All documents concerning the allegations on pages 3~12 of the CWT 

Parties' Opposition to Motion for Immediate Release of Restrained Funds, filed on 

October 9, 2018 (Dkt. No. 88) in this action, a copy of·which is attached as Exhibit B. 

10. All documents concerning the allegations in the Complaint for Interpleader 

26 (Dkt. No. l,) in this action, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. 

27 

28 

6 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 14 of 47
. , 

EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 15 of 47
-~~--,---t:--------------

CHARLES J PAVIS 

RICHARD W DAVIS 

2552 E LOS ALAMOS ST 

GILBERT, AZ. 85295-90-39 

REDE Page 14 of 39 

113 

95-21911070 2888 

9767620843 

;:~~~;:iJ;/ ~kL~~o~o;: 

r 

' 

; ~•,;' .I• 

.:~ i..i•-.. t::7 

·• 

··-

REQUEST 00007013013000000 250000.00 

ROLL EClA 201 70609 0000049899'11956-'-

JOB ECIA E ACCT 8·13 

REQUESTOR U537240 

18886010 10/30i201 7 Research 18886441 

Summons and Subpoenas Department 

Dllll-016 

Charlotte NC 28201 

11ZQ_.~ 

4989941956 

'·'· 

r ••• 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 16 of 47
EXHIBIT B 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 17 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 21 

J. Henk Taylor (016321) 

RYAN RAPP & UNDER\VOOD, P.L.C. 

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 280-1000 

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495 

Email: 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(g),schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: bnash@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: jwuttzel@,schlamstone.com 

Attorneys for Defendants CWT Canada ll 

Limited Partnership and Resource Recove1:v 

Corporation 

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: l 7-CV-04140-JJT 

CWT PARTIES' OPPOSITION TO 

l\lJOTION FOR IMJVIEDIATE 

RELEASE OF RESTRAINED 

FUNDS 

Oral Argument Requested 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 18 of 47
l 

'J 

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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 21 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

IN'fRODUC"rION ................................................................................................................ 1 

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... 3 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

The New York Court Enters Judgment Against Dennis Danzik and RDX 

for Defrauding the CWT Parties Out of Millions in Tax Credits ........................ 3 

The New York Court Holds Danzik and RDX in Criminal and Civil 

Conten1pt .............................................................................................................. 4 

The CWT Patties Take Discovery About Danzik's Assets ................................. 5 

Danzik Launders Money Through Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC .................... 6 

Danzik Launders Money Through Solverdi Worldv/ide Corporation ................. 6 

Danzik Launders Money Through Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC ............. 7 

G. The Restraining Notice and the Instant Interpleader Action ............................. 11 

ARGUl'v1ENT ...................................................................................................................... 12 

I. THE EXISTING RECORD ESTABLISHES A MATERJAL ISSUE OF 

FACT AS TO DANZIK'S INTEREST IN THE RESTRAINED FUNDS 

AND THE C\VT PARTIES ARE, AT A MINIMUM, ENTITLED TO 

DISCOVERY BEFORE ANY FUNDS ARE RELEASED .............................. 13 

II. \VYO TECH'S CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE 

RESTRAINING NOTICE FAIL. ...................................................................... 15 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 17 

-1-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 19 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 21 

Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership ("CWT Canada''), Resource 

Recovery Corporation C-'RRC"), and Jean Noelting ("Noelting,'' and together with CWT 

Canada and RRC, the ''CWT Parties") submit this memorandum of points and authorities, 

together with the Declaration of Jeffrey M. Eilender, in opposition to the motion of 

Defendant Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC C'\Vyo Tech") for immediate release of the 

restrained funds (the "Motion"). 

INTRODUCTION 

This interpleader action arises from a New York Restraining Notice that the CWT 

Parties served on a New York branch ofVvells Fargo in furtherance of their efforts to 

collect on a more-than $7 million judgment entered in the CWT Parties' favor against 

Wyo Tech's former principal Dennis Danzik. While the $546,282.55 that Wells Fargo 

restrained in accordance v,dth the Restraining Notice \Vas held in an account purportedly 

belonging to Wyo Tech, the evidence already available-before any discovery has been 

taken in this action-shows that Danzik exercises de facto control over the account such 

that the restrained funds actually belong to him. For example: 

• Wyo Tech was formed by Danzik's wife Elizabeth who, until recently was a 

homemaker with no relevant business experience. 

o Over half of the funds paid from the restrained Wyo Tech account were paid 

to Danzik's company (Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC ("DAS'')), or to 

·Elizabeth Danzil<, Danzik'ls dat1gl1ter~ Jl10,,ranna, and to otl1er l\_J~O\\'n Danzik 

cronies. 

e Wyo Tech also paid thousands of dollars in Danzik's legal fees out of this 

account (in cases in which Wyo Tech '-'Vas not involved). 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 20 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 21 

e The signature card on the account states that Jovahna Danzik (a recent 

college graduate ·with no relevant business experience or other 

qualifications) is the "owner with control" of \Vyo Tech. 

That Danzik would use a sham company to hold his assets and keep them out of the 

reach of creditors is nothing new. Indeed, in the Ne,v York action in which the judgment 

against Danzik was entered. the Court held Danzik in criminal and civil contempt-and 

issued a warrant for his arrest-for, among other things, creating a "sham company" to 

evade creditors and violate a TRO prohibiting him from transferring funds without Court 

permission. Danzik has since fled New York, and he will be imprisoned ifhe returns. 

Danzik is nmv attempting to perpetrate the same fraud in this Courl. On August 1, 

2018, tbe Court granted Wells Fargo's unopposed motion to interplead the restrained 

funds. With this motion, Wyo Tech-not coincidentally represented by Danzik's 

longtime counsel-seeks to skip over the second stage of the interpleader action: i.e., the 

judicial determination of the ownership of the fonds. Although styled as an application 

for ''immediate release" of the restrained funds, the Motion, in effect, seeks summary 

judgment on the issue of ownership before the parties l1ave conducted any discovery in 

this action. Wyo Tech asks the Comt to release the funds based on its counsel's mere 

assertion that the funds do not belong to Danzik. It is well-established, however, that a 

judgement creditor can restrain and gamish funds in which the judgment debtor has an 

interest, even if the fonds are nominally held in the name of a third-pEnty. As shmvn 

below, the existing record presents materinl issues of fact as to Danzik's interest in the 

restrained funds, thus precluding an award of summary judgment., At a minimum, the 

CWT Parties are entitled to conduct discovery before the funds are summarily released. 

For these reasons, the Motion should be denied. 

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 21 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 21 

A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

The New York Court Enters Judgment Against Dennis Danzik and RDX for 

Defrauding the CWT Parties Out of Millions in Tax Credits 

In 2013, the CWT Parties sold a renewable energy company called Changing 

World Technologies 1 L.P. ("CWT") to RDX Technologies Corporation C'RDX''). Danzik 

was RDX's CEO. Under a subsidy program enacted by Congress, CWT was eligible for 

tax credits equal to $1 per gallon of renewable diesel fuel oil ("RDO'') that it produced 

and sold. These credits could be applied to offset excise or corporate income taxes. 

Because RES owed no such taxes (as it had no profits), it was to receive a payment for 

each gallon ofRDO. For RDO produced and sold in 2012, RES stood to receive at least 

$6 or $7 million in cash payments from the U.S. Government. 

When RDX acquired CWT, in 2013, the parties agreed that tax credit payments the 

company received after the sale that were attributable to the 2012 tax year would be 

immediately remitted to the CWT Parties. Hmvever, following the acquisition, Danzik 

and RDX refused to remit over $5 million of tax credits to which RRC and CWT Canada 

were entitled. Instead. Danzik and RDX transferred the tax credits to Danzik himself, 

Danzik's wife Elizabeth, and companies that Danzik or his wife controlled. On 

November 4. 2015, because of what the New York court held were "multiple extensive, 

willful and contumacious violations of this court's discovery orders,'' the New York court 

struck Danzik's and RDX's defenses. On August 4, 2016, the New York court granted the 

CWT Parties' motion for a defau.ltjudgment. Ex. 1. 1 

On September 7, 2016, the New York court entered judgment in favor of the CWT 

Parties and against Danzik and RDX for $7,033.491.13-vvhich included the stolen tax 

credits, amounts due from a separate fraud, and pre-judgment interest. Ex. 2. 

1 Citations to ''Ex._" refer to the exhibits to the accompanying declaration of Jeffrey M. 

Eilender. 

,., -.)-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 22 of 47
Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 6 of 21 

1 B. 

2 

The New York Court Holds Danzik and RDX in Criminal and Civil Contempt 

On June 3, 2016, after a four-day hearing, the New York court also held Danzik 

3 

4 

5 

6 

and RDX in criminal and civil contempt for their violation of additional court orders. 

Specifically, the court held that Danzik (a) deliberately violated an attachment order 

directing him to return the stolen tax credits, and a TRO prohibiting RDX from 

transferring funds without court permission; and (b) committed a "fraud on the court" by 

7 

lying under oath, suborning pe1jury by another witness, and altering documents to hide his 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

n 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

theft. Ex. 3. 

In holding Danzik and RDX in contempt, the New York court held that the 

evidence at the contempt hearing showed "beyond a reasonable doubt, and certainly by 

clear and convincing evidence,'' that Danzik "stole all of the money'' from the tax credits. 

The comt also held that Danzik "admit[ted] his noncompliance with the Attachment 

Order," which required him to restore the stolen funds, and that his excuse for his 

noncompliance-that he lacked the funds to comply--was a "lie." Indeed, the New York 

court held that Danzik transfeTI"ed the tax credit funds to ''himself: his family members 

and their businesses,'' and then used that money to pay "personal expenses." Id. 

The Ne,v York court also held that Danzik violated the TRO by creating a ''sham" 

company, called M2R Licensing, LLC, for the purpose of "evading the coures orders and 

defrauding RD X's creditors." Indeed, the New York court held that " [ a ]fter having 

deposited the tax credit funds in a new, secret Hometown bank account, Danzik made sure 

to invoice all of RD X's clients with M2R invoices so revenue would be received by M'.?.R 

instead of RDX," and changed invoices to existing RDX customers to come from M2R 

instead, '' before M2R Vv'as even formed." The purpose of this scheme was for RDX to then 

claim that it ·'bad no funds to comply with the Attachment Order." But according to the 

Ne\V York court, "that excuse" was a '·fraud on the court." Id 

-4-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 23 of 47
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 ] 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 7 of 21 

Further, according to the New York court, Danzik is the "epitome of a recalcitrant, 

contemptuous, and inc01Tigib1e litigant," who "lie[d]," "'deliberately did not disclose'' 

relevant records, "coerced" a \Vitness into ''submitting false affidavits," and "pe1jured 

himself before a Canadian bankruptcy court." Id. 

After holding Danzik and RDX in contempt, and giving them an opportunity to 

purge their contempt by restoring the stolen tax credits (which they did not do), the New 

York court issued a commitment order and an arrest warrant for Danzik. Exs. 4, 5. 

Danzik has since fled New York. If he returns, he will be arrested and imprisoned. 

C. The CWT Parties Take Discovery About Danzik's Assets 

Danzik and RDX have waived any appeal of the judgment entered against them in 

New York. But Danzik and RDX have refused to pay any portion of the judgment, and 

have actively interfered with the CWT Parties to enforce the judgment and take discovery 

about their assets. 

Indeed, the CWT Parties have been seeking post-judgment discovery from Danzik 

and RDX in New York. Arizona, and Wyoming-where the judgment is also 

domesticated. Danzik has largely refused to cooperate in this discovery, forcing the CWT 

Patties to seek information about his assets from reliable nonparties. Initially, the CWT 

Patties did a nationwide search for bank accounts in Danzik's name, but came back with 

almost nothing. The CWT Parties also served numerous nonpaity subpoenas on banks 

they believed might hoid funds belonging to Danzik, but have not found any accounts in 

his name with a positive balance. It thus appeared that Danzik had no financial existence. 

But according to Danzik himself, he is gainfully employed, and continues to enjoy 

a significant income stream. Indeed, during his December :2016 deposition in his failed 

Wyoming Chapter 11 bankruptcy-which Danzik filed the night before the last day of the 

contempt hearing in New York, and which the bankruptcy court dismissed as having been 

-5-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 24 of 47
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 8 of 21 

filed in "bad faith''-Danzik testified that he averages "somewhere between $800,000, 

and a couple million dollars a year" in income. Ex. 6 at 88; Ex. 7 ( order dismissing 

Danzik's Wyoming bankruptcy case). Further, during the October 16, 2017 hearing in 

Arizona state court, Danzik testified that he is currently employed full time. Ex. 8 at 18. 

And more fundamentally, Danzik has over $5 million of the CWT Parties' tax credits. 

Given that Danzik appears to have hidden his assets and the stolen tax credits, and 

appears to have almost no assets in his own name, the CWT Patiies expanded their search 

to include entities that Danzik owns or controls. 

D. Danzik Launders Money Through Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC 

The first entity to which the CWT Parties looked was DAS, which is a Delaware 

LLC that Danzik and his wife own. A forensic accounting expert retained by the CWT 

Parties determined that DAS is one of the entities to which Danzik transferred the stolen 

tax credits. Danzik testified that he "book[s]" business "through" DAS. Ex. 9 at 42. 

While he claimed that his wife, Elizabeth, is DAS' s majority owner and managing 

member, Elizabeth was a housewife until recently, and had little or no business 

experience. Further, DAS has paid Danzik's legal fees in New York, Arizona, and 

Wyoming-and has even paid the legal fees for some ofD,mzik's coconspirators. Ex. 10. 

Moreover, Danzik's Arizona counsel, vvhich purport to represent DAS in a separate 

lawsuit in federal court in Arizona, send bills to DAS, "c/o Danzik Danzik," at Danzik~s 

e-mail address-even though Danzik is not a party to that separate action. Ex. 11. Thus, 

the evidence shows that Danzik controls DAS, and has a beneficial interest in all DAS' s 

assets. 

E. Danzik Launders Money Through Solverdi Worldwide Corporation 

Rather than paying most of its profits to Danzik and Elizabeth-DAS's two 

supposed owners-DAS transfers tens of thousands of dollars each month to another 

-6-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 25 of 47
1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 l 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 9 of 21 

Danzik entity, Solverdi. Ex. 12. 

The evidence shows that Solverdi holds Danzik's ·'slush fund''-which he uses for 

personal expenses and to support his lavish lifestyle. Danzik is the only authorized signer 

on the Solverdi account ending in 2153. Ex. 13. And Danzik-an admitted compulsive 

gambler-spends tens of thousands of dollars each month at casinos in Las Vegas using 

his Solverdi account. Ex. 14. Danzik also uses this Solverdi account for other personal 

expenses, including dinners at PF Chang's and Red 8 (an Asian restaurant at the Vlynn 

Las Vegas), and purchases at local and online stores like Walgreen's and Amazon. 

Danzik also \Vithdraws cash from the account-indeed, on October 9, 2017, he withdrew 

$3,400 for himself. Ex. 15. Thus, the evidence shows that Danzik's money flows through 

DAS accounts, into the Solverdi ;'slush fund," and then goes out to support Danzik's 

lavish lifestyle and gambling habit. 

F. Danzik Launders Money Through Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC 

The evidence shows that Danzik, Elizabeth, and Jovahna keep DAS-and thus 

Solverdi-funded by transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wyo Tech to 

DAS. According to William J. Hinz (who claims to be a member and the interim CEO of 

Wyo Tech) Elizabeth formed Wyo Tech in Wyoming, and set up its bank accounts. Also, 

according to Hinz, Elizabeth acted as Wyo Tech's "manager" when Wyo Tech was first 

formed. And according to Elizabeth herself. Elizabeth was a Wyo Tech employee doing 

"bookkeeping" and "other duties." Ex. 16. Until recently, Elizabeth had no experience in 

"bookkeeping," "manage[ment]," or entity formation. 

On September 2, 2016, Elizabeth opened a Wyo Tech account at Wells Fargo 

ending in 0345. On the account application, Elizabeth listed herself as the "Ovmer with 

Control of the Entity." Ex. 17. The statements for this account were sent to I I 08 14th., 

Cody, Wyoming 82414. which is Danzik's and Elizabeth's address. Ex. 18. Almost 

-7-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 26 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 10 of 21 

immediately after opening this Wyo Tech account, Elizabeth began transfe1Ting tens of 

thousands of dollars from the Wyo Tech account to DAS accounts, and to her own 

personal accounts. Indeed, Elizabeth transfen-ed money to DAS on almost a daily basis, 

sometimes for as much as $20,000, and other times for as little as $100. Ex. 19. 

Elizabeth also wrote checks for thousands of dollars from this Wyo Tech account to DAS, 

Danzik, and even Solverdi. And Elizabeth withdrew thousands of dollars in cash from this 

account for herself. Ex. 20. This account was suddenly closed in April 2017, with the last 

fevv transfers going to DAS or to Elizabeth herself. 

Hinz has claimed that ,:Danzik has been engaged to work on engineering and 

construction projects for Wyo Tech through" DAS-supposedly explaining some of these 

transfers to DAS-and that "neither Mr. Danzik nor DAS is currently engaged to perform 

further services for Wyo Tech.'' Ex. 21. But these statements are inconsistent \Vith Hinz's 

own previous statements, and Wyo Tech's bank records. Indeed, as explained above, 

Elizabeth wrote checks directly to Danzik. So either Danzik was also employed directly 

by Wyo Tech-which Hinz has denied-or he was receiving payments from Wyo Tech 

for no reason. Further, Hinz and his counsel previously told the CWT Parties' counsel 

that, as of October 2017, DAS had worked for Wyo Tech only in the first quarter of 2017. 

But Wyo Tecl1's bank statements show that Wyo Tech was paying tens of thousands of 

dollars per month to DAS through the fall of 201 7. Moreover, \:1.rhiJe Elizabeth has 

clai111ed tl1at she no loi1ger ,vorks for \

1

./)'0 Tecl1, she still n1ai11tains a credit card in its 

name. She uses this credit card to pay personal expenses, including a Sirius XM Radio 

subscription and limousine service. Ex. 22. 

On April 20, 2017, Jovahna opened up a new Wyo Tech account at Wells Fargo, 

ending in 2809 (the "Wells Fargo Account''). This is the account that the CWT Parties 

restrained, giving rise to this interpleader action. On the Wells Fargo Account 

-8-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 27 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 11 of 21 

application, J ovahna listed herself "Owner with Control of the Entity.'' Ex. 23. J ovahna 

recently graduated from college, and aside for working for DAS. has no relevant business 

or professional experience. Indeed, according to a resume posted online, J ovahna went to 

col1ege for design and art. Ex. 24. After opening the Wells Fargo Account, Jovahna then 

almost immediately began transferring tens of thousands of dollars to DAS accounts, 

Danzik, and Elizabeth. Again, these transfers varied drastically in amount. and were made 

on almost a daily basis. Indeed, on some days. Jovahna made half a dozen separate 

transfers. Ex. 25. Further, Jovahna wrote checks for tens of thousands of dollars to 

herself and to Elizabeth, and to many of Danzik's old cronies from his time at RDXincluding Tony Calim, Vince Meil, Doug Bean, and Monica Garcia. Ex. 26. 

Indeed, Jovahna used the \Veils Fargo Account as the Danziks' personal piggy 

bank. Approximately 65% of the spent funds from the Wells Fargo Account ,vere paid to 

DAS, Elizabeth, Jovahna, or Danzik's knmvn cronies. Moreover, Jovalma used the \Velis 

Fargo Account to pay for Danzik's personal expenses. Jndeed, she used the Wells Fargo 

Account for purchases at Best Buy, payment ofDanzik's Verizon and other bills, and 

hotel stays. Further, Jovahna paid thousands of dollars to Danzik's Arizona counsel from 

the Wells Fargo Account. Ex. 27. Wyo Tech is not a party to any lawsuits with Danzik, 

and Danzik's Arizona counsel has stated that it does not represent Wyo Tech, and does 

not knmv why ·wyo Tech paid Danzik's legal fees. Ex. 28. 

tv1oreover, Elizabeth also n1ai11tained anotl1er \1/yro Tecl1 accou11t at U.S~ Bank 

ending in 3829. From this account, she paid thousands of dollars to Danzik's New York 

counsel, Catafago Fini LLP. Ex. 29. Danzik's New York counsel, Jacques Catafago, has 

stated that this payment was for legal services his firm rendered to one of Danzik 's 

coconspirators-whom the RRC and CWT Canada are suing separately in Arizona federal 

cornt-Tony Ker. 

-9-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 28 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 12 of 21 

Thus, the evidence shmvs that Danzik-acting with Elizabeth, Jovahna, and Wyo 

Tech, and with Hinz's approval and assistance-is laundering his own money through 

''investors" or other means into Wyo Tech, and then out to DAS and Solverdi and to 

himself and his family members, or he has some beneficial interest in or entitlement to the 

funds in the Wells Fargo Account. Indeed, Danzik even pays some of his personal 

expenses directly from Wyo Tech. Further, the evidence shows that to the extent there are 

legitimate '•investors'' in Wyo Tech, Danzik, Elizabeth, Jovahna, and Wyo Tech are 

stealing from those investors by transferring Wyo Tech money to DAS, Danzik, 

Elizabeth, Jovahna, and Solverdi-as be did with CWT and RDX. 

Moreover, Jovahna also wrote a check for $25,000 from the Wells Fargo Account 

to Inductance for Inductance's "opening." Ex. 30. According to Htnz, Inductance vvas 

Danzik's "employer'' as of October 2017, and Hinz was Inductance's CEO. On October 

27, 2017, the CWT Patiies served a subpoena duces tecum on Inductance in the Wyoming 

judgment-enforcement action. Inductance never responded to this subpoena. In November 

2017, the CWT Parties also served a writ of garnishment on Inductance in the Wyoming 

judgment-enforcement action to garnish Danzik's wages. Inductance never responded to 

this subpoena either. 

According lo Danzik's recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Danzik no longer 

works for Inductance. and instead no,v works for another company called Learsi, LLC. 

Ex. 31. But according to RDX' s recent Chapter 11 bankrnptcy petition, Inductance is 

paying RDX's legal fees 1 and is a "potential investor in a prospective plan of 

reorganization'· of RDX. Ex. 32. And Inductance-just like Wyo Tech-has paid 

thousands of dollars to Elizabeth and J ovahna, including thousands of dollars for 

supposed '·petty cash.'' The evidence thus shows that Inductance is a sham entity 

controlled by Danzik, Hinz, Elizabeth, and Jovahna-and operated to further Danzik's 

- I 0-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 29 of 47
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 13 of 21 

and the Crossclaim Defendants' schemes and efforts to evade creditors. 

On December 5, 2017. RDX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Arizona. 

On December 6, 2017, Danzik filed for Chapter 1 l bankruptcy protection in Wyoming. 

Danzik and RDX filed these bankruptcy petitions on the eve of depositions they were 

required to attend in the Arizona judgment-enforcement action. This pattern of 

obstructionism is consistent with Danzik's and RDX's previous bankruptcy filings. 

Indeed, as explained above, Danzik previously filed bankruptcy on the eve of the last day 

of the contempt hearing in Nevv York in an attempt to stay the contempt hearing. This 

banhuptcy was dismissed in bad faith. RDX also filed bankruptcy in a conceded effort to 

delay the Ne,:v York action as ·well. RDX ultimately dismissed its petition after conceding 

that there was no purpose behind its Chapter 1 I action if the automatic stay were lifted. 

Danzik's and RDX's most recent bankruptcy filings were made in bad faith. 

G. The Restraining Notice and the Instant Interpleader Action 

On October 18, 2017, the CWT Parties served a restraining notice, issued pursuant 

to the Section 5222 of the Nevv York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"). on a New 

York branch of Wells Fargo (the ''Restraining Notice"). Dkt. ] 2, Ex. B. The Restraining 

Notice required Wells Fargo to restrain ''any accounts held in the name of Wyo Tech 

Investmenl Group LLC ." The notice attached a copy of a check issued from a Wyo Tech 

account at Wells Fargo, and payable to Danzik's counsel, Wilenchik and Bminess. 

Weils Fargo restrained the funds pursuani to the Restraining Notice. Wyo Tech, 

then represented by attorney Richard Walker, protested that the funds were improperly 

restrained because they belonged to Wyo Tech, not to Danzik. In response, the CWT 

Pa1iies' counsel sent a letter spelling out the basis for their belief that Danzik had an 

interest in these funds. Dkt. 12. Ex. D. 

On November 9, 2017. Wells Fargo filed the instant interpleader proceeding. On 

- I I -

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 30 of 47
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 14 of 21 

August 1, 2018. the Court granted Wells Fargo's motion to interplead the restrained funds. 

Dkt. 69. In the same order, the Court dismissed Wyo Tech's counterclaims against Wells 

Fargo for wrongful garnishment and aiding and abetting, finding that they failed to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. In so ruling. the Court rejected Wyo Tech's 

argument that the Restraining Notice was facially defective because it was served on a 

Wells Fargo branch in New York, and the funds were held in Arizona. The Court held 

that this so-called "single entity rule'' applied only to foreign bank branches, and did not 

preclude enforcement in Arizona of "an out-of-state garnishment notice served on an outof-state branch." Id. at 6. Accordingly, "Wells Fargo had authority under New York iaw 

to comply with the Restraining Notice by freezing a bank account opened in Arizona.'' Id. 

On August 16, 2018, V/yo Tech-now represented by Danzik's counsel, Wilenchik 

and Bartness-filed what it called a "Motion for Immediate Release of Wrongfully 

Restrained Funds." Dkt. 72. The Motion asks the Court to determine the ultimate issue in 

this interpleader action-i.e., whether Danzik has an interest in the restrained funds such 

that they can be used to satisfy the CWT Parties' judgment. Thus, the motion effectively 

seeks summary judgment in favor of Wyo Tech, although counsel did not submit a 

Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. as required by LR 56.1. 

On August 27, 2018. the Court entered a scheduling order. negotiated by the 

parties, pursuant to which fact discovery is scheduled to be completed by April 29, 2019. 

f-lnrl 1lw r11t-nfffnr ::ill rfo,r,nvP.ry ic; A11gnst C); 1 019_ Dkt. 79. To date no discovery has 

23 been conducted. 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ARGUMENT 

''An interpleader action usually proceeds in two stages. At the first stage, the court 

determines whether the interpleader action is appropriate .... At the second stage, the 

comt acljudicates the defendants' competing claims to the interplead funds, and the action 

-I 2-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 31 of 47
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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 15 of 21 

usually proceeds as any other civil action." Nletro. L(fe Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 2013 WL 

6048808, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2013). Thus, the parties to an interpleader are entitled 

to conduct discovery and to have the dispute adjudicated on a full record. Courts have 

rejected applications for "early distribution of disputed funds" that do not afford the 

patties ''full due process oflaw." Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n v. Magellan Ship Owners 

Ass 'n. 2010 WL 2266752. at *2 (D. Ariz. June 4,2010). 

In the instant Motion, Wyo Tech effectively asks this Court to grant it summary 

judgment on the central questions in dispute. 2 As shm:vn below, tl1e motion must be 

denied because the existing record presents material issues of fact as to the ownership of 

the restrained fonds. and, at a minimum, the CWT Parties are entitled to take discovery on 

this issue before the Court rules. Furthermore, Wyo Tech's legal arguments concerning 

the facial validity of the restraining notice are incorrect, and indeed were already rejected 

by this Court in its prior order. 

I. 

Thus, the Motion should be denied. 

THE EXISTING RECORD ESTABLISHES A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT 

AS TO DANZIK'S INTEREST IN THE RESTRAINED FUNDS AND THE 

CWT PARTIES ARE, AT A MINIMUM, ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY 

BEFORE ANY FUNDS ARE RELEASED. 

Wyo Tech 's motion is based on the circular argument that the restrained funds 

should be summarily released because the Wells Fargo account is "the sole property of 

Wyo Tech." Wyo Tech Mem. at 9. Yet this is the very issue this Court must determine in 

this interpleader action-i. e., whether the funds are, in fact, the sole property of Wyo 

2 Because it is really a summary judgment motion, Wyo Tech's Motion is also 

proceduraily deficient in that it lacks an accompanying Statement of Undisputed Material 

Facts, as required by Local Rule 56.1 The motion can be denied for this reason alone. 

See L.R. 56.1 ('"failure to submit a separate statement of facts ... may constitute grounds 

for the denial of the motion"); see also Fernandez v. City of Phoenix, 2012 WL 1985682, 

at *3 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2012) ("non-compliance'' with L.R. 56.1 is an "an independent 

ground" for denying a summary judgment motion. 

-13-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 32 of 47
I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 16 of 21 

Tech, or \Vhether Danzlk instead has an interest in those funds. Although Wyo Tech flatly 

asserts that "[t]here is no evidence that Mr. Danzik held any interest in the Wyo Tech 

funds,'' Wyo Tech. Mem. at 9, the existing record is replete with evidence that Danzik 

exercised de facto control over the account and the funds were largely used for his 

personal benefit. The evidence detailed above shows that Danzik used the Wyo Tech 

account to launder funds that were ultimately transferred to Danzik's accounts at DAS and 

Solverdi where he spent the money to support his lavish lifestyle. Moreover. tens of 

thousands of dollars from the account were used to pay Danzik's personal attorneys. 

Danzik's de facto control of Wyo Tech's account is ·n.irther supported by the fact that the 

company was set up by Danzik's wife (until recently a homemaker with no relevant 

business experience), and Danzik's daughter (a recent college graduate with a degree in 

art and design) has signature authority for the account and is listed in bank records as the 

"Owner with Control of the Entity." 

It is well-established that a judgment creditor can restrain funds even though they 

"are not nominally held in the name of the judgment debtor ... if such funds are used for 

the benefit of the judgment debtor." Wimbledon Financing .Master Fund, Ltd. v. 

Bergstein, 2018 WL 2163586, at *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. May 10, 2018): see also Bingham 

v. Zolt, 231 A.D.2d 479. 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996) (restraining notice properly 

issued when evidence showed that •'judgment debtor ha[d] regularly used another's bank 

debtor's expenses;' including using funds from this account to "pay his legal expenses"); 

ERA. Mgt., Inc. v A1orrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, 199 A.D.2d 179, 179 (N.Y. App. 

Div. 1st Dep 't 1993) (bank accounts belonging to non-debtor entities were properly 

restraining when evidence showed that accounts were "regularly used to pay [debtor's] 

personal expenses" and functioned as "'recipients' of his personal assets''). Here, the 

-14-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 33 of 47
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

case 2:17-cv~04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 17 of 21 

evidence easily creates a material issue of fact that the \Vyo Tech funds were used for 

Danzik's benefit and thus properly subject to the Restraining Notice. See Blue Giant 

Equipment Corp. v. Tee-Ser, Inc., 92 A.D.2d 630,631 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1983) 

(reversing vacature of restraining notice and noting that ·•issue of fact ... concerning the 

judgment debtor's continued interest in the accounts [] is resolvable in a hearing"). 

At a minimum, the CWT Parties are entitled to take discovery, pursuant to the 

Court's scheduling order, before the funds are summarily released. Thus, \Vyo Tech's 

motion, filed nearly a year before the discovery cut-off is at best premature. See Portland 

Retail Druggists Ass'n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641,645 (9th Cir. 1981) 

("Implicit in the opportunity to respond is the requirement that sufficient time be afforded 

for discovery necessary to develop facts essential to justify a party's opposition to the 

motion [for summary judgment].''): Jordan v. Ryan, 2010 WL 1541588, at *2 (D. Ariz. 

Apr. 19, 2010) (denying summary judgment as ·•premature" where "[n]o discovery has 

taken place"); Bank of Am., NA. v. Woodcrest Homeowners Ass 'n, 2016 \VL 8732298, at 

*] n.1 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2016) (summary judgment motion denied as "premature" vvhen 

filed "ten months before the discovery cut-off date"). 3 

19 n. WYO TECH'S CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE 

RESTRAINING NOTICE FAIL. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Wyo Tech argues that the Restraining Notice is invalid as a matter of law because 

( a) there was al !egedly no evidence that Danzik had any interest in the restrained funds: 

(b) the Restraining Notice, \Vhich was served on a Wells Fargo branch in Ne,v York 

allegedly could not apply to an account held in Arizona; and (c) the CWT Parties did not 

3 Although its counsel previously stipulated to an extensive discovery schedule, Vt.1

yo 

Tech argues that the CWT Parties should not be entitled to take any discovery in this 

action because they have had the opportunity to depose Dennis and Elizabeth Danzik in 

other proceedings. But those depositions focused largely on other matters at issue in those 

cases and are not a substitute for the discovery the C\VT Parties are entitled to take in this 

separate interpleader action. 

-15-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 34 of 47
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 18 of 21 

comply with Arizona's Writ of Garnishment Statute. As an initial matter, Wyo Tech's 

arguments about the validity of the restraining notice are irrelevant now that the 

previously restrained funds have been interplead with the Court-with Wyo Tech's 

consent. The question before the Court in this inte1vleader action is not whether the 

original restraint -was valid, but rather \Vhether Danzik does or does not have an interest in 

those funds such that they can be used to satisfy a portion of the CWT Parties' judgment. 

In any event, Wyo Tech's arguments regarding the Restraining Notice fail. 

lQ I 

11 

12 

13 

14 

First, Wyo Tech's argument that the Restraining Notice was invalid because Wells 

Fargo had no reason to believe that Danzik had an interest in the funds is incorrect. The 

CWT Parties provided such evidence-including the check attached to the Notice itself 

(which shows the use of the funds to pay Danzik's personal lawyers who were not then 

representing Wyo Tech), and the information provided in the letter from the CWT Parties' 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

' counsel, which was copied to Wells Fargo's counsel. Moreover, as this Court ruled in its 

August I, 2018 order. \Vhere, as here, a restraining notice specifies the property to be 

levied upon, the garnishee bank has "no duty to investigate the validity of the Restraining 

Notice." Dkt. 69 at 8. Thus, the Restraining Notice was facially valid, and the funds were 

validly restrained. Follmving the completion of discovery, this Cou1t will resolve the 

issue of Danzik's interest in those funds. 

Second, Wyo Tech erroneously argues that under the so-called ·'single entity rule." 

';a restraining notice served on a New York branch will be effective for assets held only in 

accounts at that branch but will have no impact on assets in other branches." Wyo Tech 

Mem. at 15. To the contrary, under New York law. "[ o ]nee a court has personal 

jurisdiction over the judgment debtor and bank. it can order the turn over of 'money or 

other personal property,' even property located out of state." Signature Bank v. HSBC 

Bank USA, NA., 67 A.DJd 917, 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dep't 2009); see also 

-l 6-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 35 of 47
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 19 of 21 

McCarthy v Wachovia Bank, NA., 759 F. Supp. 2d 265, 275 (E.D.N.Y.2011) ("as long as 

the New York court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, regardless of ·whether it is 

the judgment debtor himself, or the garnishee bank, the court may order it to turn over 

out-of-state property to a judgment creditor'') ( citing Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd.~ 12 

N.Y.3d 533, 541 (2009)). 4 

Tbis Corn1 already rejected Wyo Tech's interpretation of New York's "single 

entity rule," holding that "Wells Fargo had authority under New York law to comply with 

the Restraining Notice by freezing a bank account in Arizona." Dkt. 69 at 6. That 

holding is now ·'law of the case'' and cannot be revisited on this Motion. See United 

States v. County of Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1013 (D. Ariz. 2015) (citing United 

States v. Jingles, 702 F .3d 494, 499 (9th Cir. 2012)) ("Law of the case doctrine precludes 

a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same courL or a higher court. 

in the same case") (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Third, Wyo Tech's argument that the CWT Parties failed to comply with Arizona's 

Garnishment completely misses the mark. Again, this Com1 ruled that the CWT Parties 

could properly use a New York restraining notice to restrain funds held by Wells Fargo in 

19 1 Arizona. Wyo Tech cites no case to the contrary, and provides no argument why the 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Arizona courts would not afford full faith and credit to an order issued from a sister state. 

CONCLUSION 

4 In A1otorola Credit C01p. v. Standard Chartered Bank, the Nev,, York Court of Appeals 

held that "a restraining notice or turnover order served on a New York branch will be 

effective for assets held in accounts at that branch but will have no impact on assets in 

other branches." 24 N.Y.3d 149, 159 (2014). But the court's holding there \Vas limited to 

the question whether process served in New York could restrain "assets held in.foreign 

branch accounts," and the court specifically noted that it had '·no occasion" to address 

whether process served in New York could restrain assets held in "domestic bank 

branches in New York or elsewhere in the United States." Id. at 159 n.2. 

-I 7-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 36 of 47
1 

2 

,, 

_., 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 20 of 21 

Dated: October 9, 2018 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Respectfully submitted, 

RY AN RAPP & UNDER\VOOD, P.L.C. 

By: /s/HenkTaylor(01632l) 

J. Henk Taylor (016321) 

3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 1600 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 '"T~'I 1 //f\2,,..,8r.1/'\f\A 1 e1epnone: t ou J L u-1 vuu 

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495 

E-Mail: htaylor@rrnlmv.com 

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP 

Jeffrey M. Eilender 

Bradley J. Nash 

J oshna Wurtzel 

26 Broadway 

New York, New York 10004 

Telephone: (212) 344-5400 

Facsimile: (212) 34407677 

E-Mail: jme@,schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: bnash@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: jwu1tzel@schlamstone.com 

Attorneys Defendants CWT Canada ll Limited 

Partnership and Resource Recove,y 

Corporation 

-18-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 37 of 47
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 88 Filed 10/09/18 Page 21 of 21 

ORIGINAL e-filed and COPIES 

e-mailed this 9th day of October 2018 as 

follows: 

Dennis I. Wilenchik 

WILENCHIK & HARTNESS, P.C. 

The Wilenchik & Battness Building 

28 l 0 North Third Street 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

admirnahvb-law .cornn 

Leo R. Beus 

J:H::us U1Lts£K1 FLLC 

701 N. 44th Street 

Phoenix. Arizona 85008 

lbeus(q1bcusgi l be rt.corn 

Attorneys.for ~vo Tech Investment Group, LLC 

/s/ Henk Taylor 

J. Henk Taylor 

-19-

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 38 of 47
EXHIBIT C 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 39 of 47
Case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 8 

I Barbara J. Dawson (#012104) 

Carlie Shae Tovrea (#029709) 

2 Matt Jarvey (#031350) 

SNELL & WILMER LL r 

3 One Arizona Center 

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 

4 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 

Telephone: 602.382.6000 

5 Facsimile: 602.382.6070 

E-Mail: bdawson(mswlaw.com 

6 ctovrea@swla\v.com 

mjarvevw}swlaw.com 

7 Attorneys 'for P1a'fotiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

tUK THb DlSTKILT OF ARIZONA 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Plaintift: 

V. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC; CWT 

Canada II Limited Partnership, Resources 

Recovery Corporation; and Jean Noelting, 

Defendants. 

No. 

COMPLAINT FOR 

INTERPLEADER 

19 Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo'') alleges the following in support 

20 of its complaint against Defendants Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC ("Wyo Tech"), 

21 CWT Canada II Limited Partnership ("CWT Canada"), Resources Recovery Corporation 

23 INTRODUCTION 

24 l. This is an interpleader action. Wells Fargo seeks to interplead \Vith the 

25 Court $546,282.55 from a Wells Fargo bank account in the name of Wyo Tech, in 

26 exchange for an order discharging Wells Fargo from any potential liability related to those 

27 funds. 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 40 of 47
I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 ~I ~~8 ~ ~~:: 12 

~.J §~ 

V~1⁄4j 

§ g 13 

~--'c tZ~ ~r 1 

;:;< 

>.i 

w 14 i (t) g.E i::; '""" U) 15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

.:.,.,:,, ""' 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 8 

2. Two sets of adverse claimants have asserted claims to the funds that Wells 

Fargo now seeks to interplead. 

3. On September 7, 2016, Defendants CWT Canada, RRC. and Noelting 

(collectively ··the Judgment Claimants") obtained a judgment in the Supreme Court of the 

State ofNe,v York, Index No. 650841/2013, in the amount of $7.033,491.13 plus interest 

against Dennis :M. Danzik and RDX Technologies Corporation (f/k/a Ridgeline Energy 

Services, Inc.) (the "Judgment Debtors"). That judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit A 

(the ·'Underlying Judgment"). 

4. On one hand, the Judgment Claimants assert that they are entitled to the 

funds pursuant to the Underlying Judgment and a reiated restraining notice, which 

required Wells Fargo to freeze Wyo Tech's account. 

5. On the other hand, Defendant Wyo Tech asserts that the Judgment 

Claimants are not entitled to the funds and has threatened to sue Wells Fargo if it does not 

unfreeze Wyo Tech's account. 

6. Wells Fargo will potentially be subject to double liability because it may be 

required to pay the funds to both claimants. If it releases the frozen funds to Wyo Tech, 

then it risks contempt of court for violating the Judgment Claimants' restraining notice. If 

it keeps the funds frozen, however, then it risks litigation with Wyo Tech. 

7. Accordingly, Wells Fargo now seeks to interplead the disputed funds with 

the Court so that the adverse claimants-the Defendants to this action-can adjudicate 

their entitlement to the funds and Wells Fargo can secure an order discharging it of 

I:_ L ~ 1 ~"--. 4-~ 4,t., _ T"\.-C'.-..-. ..-J .,,,.,._ ,.,... llc1UUIL)' LU LUC L/C:lClll.Hl.llL::> • 

PARTIES, .RJRISDTCTION, AND VENUE 

8. Wells Fargo is a national bank organized under the National Bank Act. For 

diversity jurisdiction purposes, a national bank is a citizen of the state designated as its 

main office on its articles of association. See 28 U.S.C. § I 348; Wachovia Bank v. 

Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006). Wells Fargo's designated main office is in South 

Dakota. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 41 of 47
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

t p I ,. .oc 0"' 12 

~~Jl~ 13 

~ j]~U .-~ I Ow,i:::. =>.i 14 (1.) :-: ; 

~ ;;:,= 

(J) 15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

"'"' ..!.,,;., 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 3 of 8 

9. Wyo Tech is a Wyoming limited liability company \.vhose. sole member, 

William Hinz, is a citizen of Maricopa County, Arizona. Upon information and belie( 

Wyo Tech does business in Maricopa County, Arizona. 1 

I 0. Upon infonnation and beliet: CWT Canada is a limited liability partnership 

incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 

As a limited partnership, the citizenship of CWT Canada is the citizenship of its partners, 

and all partners are incorporated and reside in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 

11. Upon information and beliet: RRC is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in New York. 

12. Upon information and bell et: Noeiting is a citizen of Canada. 

13. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § I 335, because 

the two sets of claimants are of diverse citizenship, or, alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332, because the citizenship of the parties is completely diverse and because the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

14. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1397 because \Vyo Tech 

resides in the District of Arizona. Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 

1391 (b )(2) because Wyo Tech has threatened litigation in Arizona related to the disputed 

funds, or under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)(3) because at least one of the Defendants is subject to 

personal jurisdiction in the District of Arizona. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

15. On September 7, 2016, the Judgment Claimants obtained the Underlying 

amount of $7,033,491.13 plus interest, against the Judgment Debtors. 

16. On October 18, 2017, the Judgment Claimants issued a Restraining Notice 

and Information Subpoena to Wells Fargo, pursuant to Ne\v York law (the "Restraining 

Notice"). That Restraining Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

1 Upon information and belie±~ Wyo Tech has no known contacts with the state of New 

York. 

- 3 -

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 42 of 47
~I 88 8 ~:_: 

~,j 

,,., 

s8 

1-':_t:> 

~ g ~rl :; ,~ ::D !.! 

~.,?, 

>.tl 

u.i ~ tl) e:.1 ~ -,-"" 

if) 

l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

,,,, 

..;,,:, 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 4 of 8 

17. In the Restraining Notice, the Judgment Claimants asse11ed that Wells Fargo 

is "in possession or in custody of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest as 

well as account(s) or any other property, tangible or intangible or interest in any property 

in the name of the judgment debtor, including but not limited to the account reflected in 

the check in the attached Exhibit A, and any other accounts held in the name of Wyo 

Tech Investment Group LLC.'' Ex. B, at 2 (emphasis in original). The attached check 

payable to Wilenchik & Bartness is drawn on the Wyo Tech account ending in -2809. Ex. 

B, at 4. 

18. Pursuant to Section 5222(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, 

the Restraining Notice forbids Weiis Fargo ·'to make or suffer any sale, assignment, or 

transfer o( or any interference ,vith any prope11y in which the judgment debtors have an 

interest, except upon direction of the sheriff or pursuant to an order of the court until tbe 

aforesaid judgment is satisfied or vacated.'' Ex. B, at 5. Jt also states that disobeying tbe 

Restraining Notice is punishable as contempt of corn1. Ex. B, at 5. lf Wells Fargo failed 

to restrain the identified account, Wells Fargo could be liable to the fodgment Claimants. 

19. Section 5222(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules provides in 

relevant part: 

A restraining notice served upon a person other than the judgment debtor or 

obligor is effective only iC at the time of service, he or she owes a debt to 

the judgment debtor or obligor or he or she is in the possession or custody 

of property in which he or she knmvs or has reason to believe the judgment 

debtor or obligor has an interest, or if the judgment creditor or support 

collection unit has stated in the notice that a specified debt is owed hy the 

person served to the judgment debtor or obligor or that the judgment debtor 

or obligor has an interest in specified property in the possession or custoc(v 

of the person served. All property in which the judgment debtor or obligor 

is known or believed to have an interest then in and thereafter corning into 

the possession or custody of such a person, including any specified in the 

notice, and all debts of such a person, including any specified in the notice, 

then due mid thereafter coming due to the judgment debtor or obligor, shall 

be subject to the notice except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of this 

section. Such a person is forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment 

or transfer oJ: or any interference with, any such property, or pay over or 

otherwise dispose of any such debt, to any person other than the sheriff or 

the support collection unit. except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of 

this section, and except upon direction of the sheriff or pursuant to an order 

of the court, until the expiration of one year after the notice is served upon 

- 4 -

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 43 of 47
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 ~I 28 _§ s::~: 12 1•'1' 

~~ 38 

v~:;:; 

& g 13 

c.?5 j JB 

~-!. ii \..U 

> .i 

!.: 14 C ~ C,-" 

""'-

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

')") 

~~ 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140~JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 5 of 8 

him or her. or until the judgment or order is satisfied or vacated, whichever 

event first occurs. 

N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5222 (McKinney) (emphasis added). 

20. The Restraining Notice specifically identified and commanded the restraint 

of the Wyo Tech account. 

21. After receiving the Restraining Notice, Wells Fargo froze the identified 

Wyo Tech account so as to comply with the Restraining Notice and avoid liability for 

contempt of cornt and to the Judgment Claimants. Tl1e Wyo Tech account ending 

in -2809 was opened at a Wells Fargo branch in Arizona. 

22. Further, the Business Account Agreement applicable to the Wyo Tech 

account provides that in the event of an "adverse claim"-defined as "[a]ny person or 

entity mak[ing] a claim against your account funds''-Wells Fargo can '<[tlreeze all or 

part of the funds in your account until \Ve believe the dispute is resolved to our 

satisfaction" and ''[p]ay the fonds into an appropriate court." The Business Account 

Agreement also provides that Wells Fargo ''may charge any account you maintain with us 

for our fees and expenses in taking these actions (including attorney's fees and 

expenses ) . " 

23. Shortly after ·we1ls Fargo froze the Wyo Tech account, counsel for Wyo 

Tech contacted counsel for Wells Fargo by letter, copying counsel for the Judgment 

Claimants, disputing that the fonds in Wyo Tech 's account are related to the Judgment 

Claimants' judgment, asserting that Wyo Tech is the sole account holder and only party to 

wl,nm f11nrlc: in thP :;J('_('_()llflt :;irp n\Nf':rl, :;JC:C:Prting th~t ''nPi1hPr Mr. n,mzik nnr RnX nm· ~my 

member of Mr. Danzik's family holds any right, title, or interest'' in the account, 

acknowledging that a small indebtedness may be O\Ved from Wyo Tech to Danzik Applied 

Sciences, disputing that the Judgment Claimants' Restraining Notice is effective, and 

threatening to sue Wells Fargo and Judgment Claimants in Arizona if Wyo Tech's funds 

were not released by November 10, 2017. The letter from Wyo Tech's counsel outlining 

these asse1tions is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

- 5 -

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 44 of 47
ti ~ii:8 ~ ~-~: 

~,j 

,::f, 

30 

~~> 

~ g 

~j~ ~ ~ 

" 8~ ........ >.i ......... Lu~ Q.) ~l ::: .,. '-

Cf) 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

'1 '1 ..:..L 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 6 of 8 

24. Counsel for CWT Canada, RRC, and Noelting responded to Wyo Tech's 

counsel on November 6, 2017, asserting that the Restraining Notice is proper and that 

Wyo Tech is liable to Judgment Claimants for fraudulent transfers and conspiracy to 

commit fraudulent transfers. This letter from Judgment Claimants' counsel is attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. The letter identifies that Danzik's daughter, Jovahna Danzik, is listed 

on the signature card for the Wyo Tech account as the "Owner with Control of the 

Entity," ''has check-signing authority, and directs so many payments to herself, her 

mother, and her father's company." Ex. D, at 2. The Judgment Claimants' counsel 

asserts that "if Wells Fargo releases these funds, it will be liable to the Judgment 

[Ciaimants]." Ex. D, at 3. 

25. Without the interpleader action. Wells Fargo has two options: (1) obey the 

Restraining Notice and subject itself to litigation with Wyo Tech relating to the account 

freeze; or (2) release the disputed funds to Wyo Tech and risk contempt of court and 

liability to the Judgment Claimants for disobeying the Restraining Notice. 

26. Wells Fargo is unable to determine which Defendants are entitled to the 

funds subject to the interpleader action, and cannot determine which claim is valid \Vithout 

exposing itself to potential double litigation. 

COUNTT 

Interpleader 

27. Wells Fargo incorporates all prior allegations. 

28. Wells Fargo joins Defendants in this interpleader action pursuant to 28 

29. We!Is Fargo has in its custody or possession $546,282.55 from a Wells 

Fargo bank account in the name of Wyo Tech. 

30. Adverse claimants-the Judgment Claimants and \Vyo Tech-are claiming 

entitlement to those funds. 

- 6 -

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 45 of 47
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 ~I 88 s £:~-: 12 ;d ~~ ~~ 

E g ]3 ~I] ~ ~ 

en :.: 

~ -f. 

14 >.i 

81 ~"-

U) 15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 7 of 8 

31. Because of the adverse claims to the funds to the account ending in -2809, 

Wells Fargo is in the position of a stakeholder and claims no interest in the funds at issue 

(other than for reimbursement of its costs and attomeys' fees). 

32. The Judgment Claimants' and Wyo Tech's claims to the funds risk 

subjecting Wells Fargo to double liability. 

33. Wells Fargo seeks to interplcad those funds with the Court and is ready, 

willing, and able to deposit the funds with the Court. 

34. Wells Fargo is entitled to and requests an order discharging it from liability 

as to the claims made ( or to be made) against it by the parties to this action. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, Wells Fargo requests that the Court grant the following relief: 

A. An order directing Wells Fargo to deposit the disputed funds into the 

registry of the Court and directing the Clerk to accept tl1e deposit into an interest-bearing 

account unti I thrther orders from the Court: 

B. An order restraining and permanently enjoining Defendants from instituting 

or prosecuting any action against Wells Fargo related to the funds at issue in this action, 

and dismissing and discharging \:Veils Fargo from any liability associated \Vith those 

funds, see 28 U.S.C. § 2361; 

C. An award of Wells Fargo's costs and reasonable attorneys' fees it incurred 

in this matter from the funds deposited with the Court; 

D. Such a judgment is necessary to determine who is properly entitled to the 

E. Any other relief to ·which Wells Fargo is entitled or that the Comt deems 

just and proper. 

- 7 -

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 46 of 47
~I 28 6 s;:;.: 

- .f2; 

~r.: 

:=,'.:;, If),,,, 

.» 

& 2 

~j _gg 

B .-?. JI >.?i 

iJ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

,., ,., ,:..L, 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 8 of 8 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day ofNovember, 2017. 

4845-0138-1716.2 

SNELL & \VILMER LLP 

By: /s/ Carlie Tovrea 

Barbara J. Dawson 

Carlie Shae Tovrea 

Matt Jarvey 

- 8 -

One Arizona Center 

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-2 Filed 07/26/19 Page 47 of 47