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

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@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 FOR 

AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND FOR ADDITIONAL

SANCTIONS

Oral Argument Requested

And related claims.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 15
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

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.......................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................... 2

ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................ 5

I. THIS COURT SHOULD HOLD ALL THE CONTEMNORS IN CIVIL 

CONTEMPT OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER, AND ISSUE BENCH 

WARRANTS FOR THEIR ARREST....................................................................... 5

II. SEPARATELY, THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT FOR 

DAS’s PURPORTED SOLE MEMBER, ELIZABETH DANZIK ......................... 8

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 10

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 15
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 for entry of (1) an 

order to show cause why nonparties Charles J. Davis, Richard W. Davis, Ashley 

Mosharrafa, Tamir Mosharrafa, Ali M. Mosharrafa, Kristin Joiner Mosharaffa, and 

Elizabeth Danzik (as purported sole member of Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC (“DAS”))

(collectively, the “Contemnors”) should not be held in civil contempt for their refusal to 

comply with this Court’s June 27, 2019 contempt order (Dkt. No. 167) (the “Contempt 

Order”) by refusing to pay the daily fines this Court imposed on each of them, with the 

sanction for their contempt of the Contempt Order being additionally daily fines and 

issuance of a bench warrant for their arrest and an order incarcerating them until they fully 

comply with the Contempt Order or show that they cannot; and (2) a bench warrant for the 

arrest of Elizabeth Danzik—Dennis Danzik’s wife and the purported sole member of 

DAS—and an order incarcerating her until she causes DAS to fully comply with the 

subpoena served on it in this action in accordance with the Contempt Order or shows that 

she cannot.

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

and the Declaration of Joshua Wurtzel. The CWT Parties have lodged a proposed form of 

order granting this motion, and proposed bench warrants for each contemnor are attached 

to the Wurtzel Declaration as Exhibits A-G.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

As we explained in our July 26, 2019 status report (Dkt. No. 181), all seven of the 

Contemnors have refused to pay the daily fines this Court assessed on them in the 

Contempt Order. And DAS—Wyo Tech’s managing member—which is purportedly a 

single-member entity owned and controlled by Dennis Danzik’s wife, Elizabeth Danzik—

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 15
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-

has refused to produce any documents in response, or otherwise meaningfully respond, to 

the subpoena we served on it in accordance with the Contempt Order. Thus, despite this 

Court’s Contempt Order and on-the-record admonitions to Wyo Tech’s counsel—which 

appears to be directly in touch with most of, if not all, the Contemnors—the Contemnors 

continue to flout this Court’s authority. 

First, this Court should hold all seven Contemnors in civil contempt of the 

Contempt Order because they have refused to pay the daily fines required by the 

Contempt Order. And the sanction this Court imposes on them for this contempt should be 

an additional daily fine of $1,000 per day and the issuance of bench warrants for their 

arrest. 

Second, and separate and apart from sanctions for refusal to pay daily fines, this 

Court should also issue a bench warrant for the arrest of Elizabeth Danzik, DAS’s 

purported sole and managing member, because DAS continues to refuse to comply with 

the subpoena served on it, and thus remains in civil contempt.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As this Court knows, on June 27, 2019, this Court entered the Contempt Order—

holding nonparties DAS, Charles J. Davis, Richard W. Davis, Ashley Mosharrafa, Tamir 

Mosharrafa, Ali M. Mosharrafa, and Kristin Joiner Mosharaffa in civil contempt, ordering 

them to pay the CWT Parties’ legal fees incurred in moving for contempt against them, 

and assessing a $250 daily fine against each of them beginning on June 27, 2019 and 

lasting until each “fully complies” with the subpoenas served on them. Dkt. No. 167 at 2.

Following the June 27 Contempt Order, the CWT Parties made extensive efforts to 

serve each of these seven nonparties with the Contempt Order—some of whom were 

served only after multiple attempts at multiple locations. But between June 28 and July 8, 

2019, all seven were served with the Contempt Order. See Dkt. No. 182-1.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 4 of 15
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-

On July 1, 2019, Charles Davis made a substantial production of documents in 

response to the subpoena. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 3. These documents included e-mails between 

Mr. Davis, Dennis Danzik, Bill Hinz (Wyo Tech’s CEO), and Wyo Tech’s counsel in 

which Mr. Davis appears to seek advice from Wyo Tech regarding his obligation to 

respond to the subpoena—thus showing that he knew about this subpoena since it was 

served almost six months ago and, likely with some encouragement by Wyo Tech, chose 

to ignore it. See Dkt. No. 182-2. We are satisfied that Mr. Davis’s production “fully 

complies” with the subpoena served on him, though Mr. Davis has not paid the daily fine 

this Court imposed in the Contempt Order. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 4.

On July 8, 2019, having received no response from any of the other Contemnors, 

we sent letters to each of them demanding their immediate compliance with the subpoenas 

we served on them, asking them to reach out to us to make arrangements to pay our 

attorneys’ fees and the daily fine this Court imposed, and attaching the Contempt Order. 

See Dkt. No. 182-3. Also on July 8, we sent a letter to Charles Davis acknowledging 

receipt of his production, and demanding that he pay the daily fine this Court imposed on 

him for four days ($1,000). Id. Mr. Smith did not respond to this letter, nor has he paid 

these daily fines or reached out to us to discuss this. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 5.

On July 10, 2019, Wyo Tech’s counsel forwarded us a two-page, written response 

from DAS—which was signed under penalty of perjury by Elizabeth Danzik, Dennis 

Danzik’s wife and the supposed sole member of DAS. Dkt. Nos. 182 ¶ 6, 182-4. This 

response purported to respond to the subpoena we served on DAS. Dkt. No. 182-4. But 

DAS refused produce any documents in response to the subpoena. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 6. And 

DAS’s excuses for its failure to produce responsive documents were frivolous. Id.

First, in response to most of our document requests, DAS claimed that it has no 

responsive documents “beyond those that have already been produced to CWT and its 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 5 of 15
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-

attorneys” in other actions. Dkt. No. 182-4. But this is not an acceptable response. If DAS 

has documents responsive to these requests in its possession, custody, or control, it is 

required to produce them—regardless of whether it believes we already have copies of 

these documents. 

Second, DAS did not respond to our request for all contracts or agreements 

between it and Wyo Tech or Inductance—and incorrectly misstated Request No. 7 as one 

for communications with Mr. Hinz. Dkt. Nos. 182 ¶ 8, 182-4.

Third, DAS stated that Ms. Danzik is DAS’s “sole member.” Dkt. No. 182-4. But 

DAS did not produce any documents showing this. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 9.

Fourth, DAS stated that it has no documents concerning its operation, “including 

the Persons that control [DAS] and [its] beneficial owners,” because “DAS ceased 

operations in the late summer or [sic] 2017.” Dkt. No. 182-4. But this is not an acceptable 

response either. Even if DAS ceased operations, as long as it remains in existence (which 

it does), it must have documents showing who controls it and who its beneficial owners 

are. And it certainly must have these documents from before late-summer 2017, when it 

was concededly still in operation.

On July 10, 2019, we sent Ms. Danzik a letter outlining these deficiencies, and 

explaining that DAS’s written response to the subpoena we served on it was an 

“unacceptable, disingenuous response to the subpoena that [DAS] ignored for over five 

months,” and that its “continued refusal to produce responsive documents shows that [it] 

still fail[s] to take this subpoena—and the court’s order holding DAS in civil contempt—

seriously.” Dkt. No. 182-5. Also in this letter, we demanded that DAS pay the daily fine 

this Court imposed on it for its continued period of noncompliance. Id. Neither DAS nor 

Ms. Danzik responded to this letter, nor did DAS or Ms. Danzik pay these daily fines, nor 

did they reach out to us to discuss this. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 11.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 6 of 15
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-

On July 11, 2019, Ashley Mosharrafa, Tamir Mosharrafa, Ali M. Mosharrafa, and 

Kristin Joiner Mosharaffa all produced responses to the subpoenas served on them. Id.

¶ 12. We are satisfied that the Mosharrafas’ productions “fully compl[y]” with the 

subpoenas served on them. Id. We responded to them by e-mail acknowledging receipt of 

these productions, but also demanding that they each pay the daily fine this Court imposed 

on each of them for 13 days ($3,250 each). Dkt. No. 182-6. None of the Mosharrafas 

responded to this e-mail, nor have they paid these daily fines or reached out to us to 

discuss this. Dkt. No. 182 ¶ 13.

As this Court knows, we stated the facts above in our July 26, 2019 status report. 

See Dkt. No. 181. Since filing this status report, we received a written response and small 

document production from Richard W. Davis. Wurtzel Decl. ¶ 4. According to the 

U.S.P.S. parcel in which we received this response and production, Mr. Davis mailed 

these documents out on July 23, 2019. Id. We are satisfied that this production “fully 

complies” with the subpoena served on Mr. Davis, though Mr. Davis has not paid the 

daily fine this Court imposed in the Contempt Order. Id. Given his July 23 production 

date, Mr. Davis is liable for 26 days of daily fines, for a total of $6,500.

To date, we have not received any further response or documents from DAS, nor 

have any of the Contemnors paid the daily fines this Court imposed on them in the 

Contempt Order. Id. ¶ 5.

ARGUMENT

I. THIS COURT SHOULD HOLD ALL THE CONTEMNORS IN CIVIL 

CONTEMPT OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER, AND ISSUE BENCH 

WARRANTS FOR THEIR ARREST

“‘Civil contempt is characterized by the court’s desire to compel obedience to a 

court order, or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for the injuries which result from 

the noncompliance.’” Sell v. Country Life Ins. Co., 2017 WL 5713885, at *3 (D. Ariz. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 7 of 15
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

-6-

Feb. 27, 2017) (quoting Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 

(9th Cir. 1983)). “A party moving for civil contempt ‘has the burden of showing by clear 

and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the 

court.’” Id. (quoting FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 

1999)). “‘The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable 

to comply.’” Id. (quoting Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d at 1239).

“The court’s power of civil contempt includes the power to issue a bench warrant 

for a contemnor’s arrest.” Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 1985). And 

“[w]hile the use of a civil arrest warrant is an extreme remedy,” this Court has the 

“inherent power to punish a party for failure to comply with a court order,” and also has 

the “statutory authority to punish by imprisonment a party’s failure to comply with a court 

order.” United States v. Hill, 2014 WL 12839160, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2014) (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 401). Further, a party imprisoned for civil contempt “‘carries the keys of his 

prison in his own pocket,’” since he can “‘end the sentence and discharge himself at any 

moment by doing what he had previously refused to do.’” United States v. Harper, 2009 

WL 2983204, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2009) (quoting Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range 

Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911)).

It is undisputed that, in the Contempt Order, this Court ordered all seven 

Contemnors to pay daily fines of $250 “beginning on June 27, 2019 and lasting until the 

non-party fully complies with the subpoena(s) at issue.” Dkt. No. 167 at 2. It is also 

undisputed that all seven Contemnors were served with the Contempt Order (Dkt. No. 

182-1), and that they understood the Contempt Order—since they all provided a response 

of some kind (Dkt. No. 182 ¶¶ 3, 6, 12; Wurtzel Decl. ¶ 4). And it is also undisputed that 

none of the seven contemnors have paid the daily fines this Court ordered them to pay, 

despite our demands for them and warning that we would seek their arrest if they failed to 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 8 of 15
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

-7-

pay. Dkt. No. 182-3; Wurtzel Decl. ¶ 5. Thus, this Court should hold all seven 

Contemnors in civil contempt of the Contempt Order based on their failure to pay these 

daily fines.

Further, imposing additional fines or monetary sanctions on the Contemnors will 

be unlikely—on their own—to compel them to pay the daily fines in the Contempt Order, 

since the Contemnors have already shown that they will not pay these fines absent 

additional enforcement methods. And converting these fines to judgment will require the 

CWT Parties to incur substantial additional costs to enforce these judgments against the 

Contemnors, which would be for only a few thousand dollars in most cases. Thus, to 

compel the Contemnors’ compliance with the Contempt Order, this Court should issue 

bench warrants for their arrest, and should order them incarcerated until they fully comply 

with the Contempt Order or show that they cannot. See Laparade v. Ivanova, 116 F. 

App’x 100, 102 (9th Cir. 2004) (court issued warrant for contemnor’s arrest after 

contemnor was held in contempt but still refused to “appear and pay daily fines”); S.E.C. 

v. Navin, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) (after party’s nonpayment of civil penalties, court 

held party in contempt and issued “bench warrant for his arrest”); Miller v. Iles, 978 F.2d 

715 (9th Cir. 1992) (court issued warrant for party’s arrest after he “failed to appear at a 

contempt hearing on his failure to pay the sanctions”); Harper, 2009 WL 2983204, at *2 

(issuing warrants for contemnors’ arrest); United States v. Foley, 2009 WL 1010085, at *2 

(D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2009) (issuing warrant for contemnor’s arrest); see also A&F Bahamas, 

LLC v. World Venture Group, Inc., 2019 WL 3326025, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2019)

(Report and Recommendation) (recommending that district judge issue a bench warrant 

for contemnor’s arrest if contemnor failed to pay court-ordered monetary sanction); Sand 

Creek Partners, Ltd v. Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Colorado, 2016 WL 829974, at *2

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 9 of 15
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

-8-

(D. Nev. Mar. 2, 2016) (issuing bench warrant for contemnor’s arrest until contemnor 

“fully cure[d] his contempt”).

And as an additional method to compel their compliance, this Court should also

require each Contemnor to pay $1,000 per day from the date of entry of this order through 

the date they pay all the daily fines assessed against them under the Contempt Order (plus 

any additional daily fines that accrue under this order).

II. SEPARATELY, THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT 

FOR DAS’s PURPORTED SOLE MEMBER, ELIZABETH DANZIK ___

A command to a company is “in effect a command to those who are officially 

responsible for the conduct of its affairs.” Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd 

Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 955 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Thus, “[i]f they, 

apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take

appropriate action within their power for the performance of the corporate duty, they, no 

less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience, and may be punished for 

contempt.’” Id. (citation omitted); see also N.L.R.B. v. Sequoia Dist. Council of 

Carpenters, AFL-CIO, 568 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1977) (officers of company are 

“legally identified” with company, and are thus “liable in contempt for disobeying an 

order” directed to company).

“‘[T]o be held liable in contempt, it is necessary that a non-party respondent must 

either abet the defendant [in violating the court’s order] or be legally identified with him,’

and that the non-party have notice of the order.’” Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 

F.3d 1313, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). The managing 

member of an LLC is “legally identified” with the LLC, because the managing member 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 10 of 15
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

-9-

has the “ability to act on behalf of” the LLC. United States v. Montgomery Global 

Advisors LLC, 2006 WL 950102 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2006).

As explained above, DAS has not “fully complie[d]” with the subpoena we served 

on it. Indeed, it has refused to produce any documents, and has made only pithy—oftenincredible—excuses for why it need not comply with the subpoena. See Dkt. No. 182-4. 

And if DAS’s response is considered compliance with the subpoena—or even partial 

compliance to avoid arrest or further contempt sanctions—then this Court’s Contempt 

Order requiring DAS to “fully compl[y]” with the subpoena served on it would mean 

nothing. Indeed, if DAS avoids arrest or further sanctions here, then any nonparty could 

prepare a pithy, written response without searching for or producing any documents and 

know that they are unlikely to be sanctioned. This is not the law.

Further, in her response—which she swore to under oath—Ms. Danzik claims that 

she is the “sole member” of DAS. Dkt. No. 182-4 Response No. 8. And in the Wyo Tech 

operating agreement, which lists DAS as Wyo Tech’s managing member, Ms. Danzik 

signs on behalf of DAS as its managing member. Dkt. No. 160-8 at 23. Thus, Ms. Danzik 

has the “ability to act on behalf of” DAS—and indeed, is the only person who can act on 

behalf of DAS. See Montgomery Global Advisors, 2006 WL 950102 at *2. And since 

DAS was properly served and Ms. Danzik is clearly aware of the Contempt Order based 

on her limited response to the subpoena, Ms. Danzik can be held personally liable for 

DAS’s contempt, since DAS’s contemptuous conduct is functionally hers, and vice versa. 

See id. (holding managing member of LLC “personally liable” for LLC’s contempt). And 

proceeding solely against DAS is likely to be futile, since Ms. Danzik swore in her 

response that DAS is no longer in operation (Dkt. No. 182-4 Response No. 9), and our 

understanding is that DAS is merely a shell company that Dennis Danzik and his wife use 

to funnel money between entities for their personal benefit.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 11 of 15
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

-10-

Moreover, this Court should issue a bench warrant for Ms. Danzik’s arrest to 

compel DAS’s (and thus her) compliance with the subpoena, because Ms. Danzik has 

already shown that she will disregard this Court’s orders as she sees fit. Indeed, Wyo 

Tech’s counsel has stated that Ms. Danzik is a current Wyo Tech employee. Dkt. No. 174-

3 at 5. And Wyo Tech’s counsel currently represents Ms. Danzik and DAS in a separate 

suit with the CWT Parties that is scheduled for trial before Judge Campbell in December 

2019. See CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, et al. v. Danzik, et al., Case No. 16-cv00607-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.). So there is no doubt that Ms. Danzik knew of the June 27 

contempt hearing and of her obligations under the Contempt Order, yet chose to disregard 

them anyway. Thus, Ms. Danzik’s arrest is likely the only way to compel DAS’s (and thus 

her) compliance with the Contempt Order.

CONCLUSION

This Court should issue (1) an order to show cause why nonparties Charles J. 

Davis, Richard W. Davis, Ashley Mosharrafa, Tamir Mosharrafa, Ali M. Mosharrafa, 

Kristin Joiner Mosharaffa, and Elizabeth Danzik (as purported sole member of DAS)

should not be held in civil contempt for their refusal to comply with the Contempt Order 

by refusing to pay the daily fines this Court imposed on each of them, with the sanction 

for their contempt of the Contempt Order being assessment of daily fines of $1,000 per 

day from the date of entry of this order through the date they pay all the daily fines 

assessed against them under the Contempt Order (plus any additional daily fines that 

accrue under this order), and issuance of a bench warrant for their arrest and an order 

incarcerating them until they fully comply with the Contempt Order or show that they 

cannot; and (2) separately, a bench warrant for the arrest of Elizabeth Danzik and an order 

incarcerating her until she causes DAS to fully comply with the subpoena served on it in 

this action in accordance with the Contempt Order or shows that she cannot.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 12 of 15
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

-11-

Further, since the Contemnors have now been personally served twice—with the 

subpoenas and the Contempt Order—and given the substantial expense the CWT Parties 

have already incurred serving the Contemnors, this Court should also authorize service of 

its order to show cause on these nonparties by overnight Federal Express.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 13 of 15
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

-12-

Dated:August 2, 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) 34407677

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 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 14 of 15
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

-13-

ORIGINAL e-filed and COPIES

e-mailed this 2nd day of August

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

_________________________

Joshua Wurtzel

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183 Filed 08/02/19 Page 15 of 15