1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Thomas A. Zlaket, SBA # 001819

THOMAS A. ZLAKET, P.L.L.C.

310 South Williams Boulevard, Suite 170

Tucson, Arizona 85711-4446

Phone: (520) 750-0250

Fax: (520) 750-0243

Email: tom@zlaketlaw.com

Attorney for Nonparty Movants

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

MOTION FOR RECUSAL

OF ASSIGNED JUDGE

Nonparty movants John F. Rasor, Scott Duncan, Mike Wilhelm, Tom Burgess, Scott Lane, 

Meredith Lane, Ryan McDonough, Tim Orscheln, Lewis Henkind, Mike Spaulding, Ron Ellis, 

Annie Ellis, Janet Stephens, and Clayton Stephens (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 

“Subpoenaed Individuals”) hereby submit this Motion for Recusal of the judge assigned to this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §455. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities, and is being filed in conjunction with the Motion to Quash Subpoenas

filed by the Subpoenaed Individuals contemporaneously herewith.

INTRODUCTION

As this Court is aware, this matter is (or ought to be) a straightforward and relatively 

uncomplicated interpleader action that was initiated by Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) in 

2017. The Complaint alleged that Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership (“CWT”) and 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 204 Filed 08/22/19 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Jean Noelting (collectively, the “CWT Parties”) were claiming an interest in $546,282.55 in funds 

held in the Wells Fargo account for Defendant Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC (“Wyo Tech”). 

The CWT Parties were claiming that interest in Wyo Tech’s funds based on a judgment they 

obtained in 2016 in New York against Dennis Danzik and RDX Technologies (“RDX”)—not 

Wyo Tech. The CWT Parties were somehow able to persuade a judge in New York—despite 

having no direct evidence to support their assertions—that Danzik and RDX had some nebulous 

connection to Wyo Tech and its money. Based on the CWT Parties’ unsupported allegations, 

suppositions and unreasonable inferences, the New York court inexplicably allowed the CWT 

Parties to issue a Restraining Notice to Wells Fargo, freezing the Wyo Tech account over Wyo 

Tech’s adamant objections. Thereafter, Wells Fargo interpleaded the funds along with its 

Complaint in this action. The case was originally assigned to Judge Tuchi. Sometime in 2018,

the case was reassigned to Judge Dominic Lanza, a newly-appointed District Court Judge.

RELEVANT FACTS

Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge Lanza worked for the United States 

Attorney’s Office in Arizona (“USAO-Arizona”) from December 2, 2012 to September 11, 2018, 

as the head of the financial crimes unit and later as the head of the entire criminal division of the 

USAO-Arizona. In that capacity, Judge Lanza oversaw a number of attorneys including Peter 

Sexton and Kevin Rapp. On information and belief, Judge Lanza was and still is a close friend of 

Kevin Rapp. Kevin Rapp’s brother, Chris Rapp, is a named partner in the Phoenix law firm of 

Ryan Rapp & Underwood—the significance of which will become readily apparent.

At the time Judge Lanza was heading up the criminal division of the USAO-Arizona, Peter 

Sexton was actively investigating Dennis Danzik for various alleged crimes related to tax credits 

received by RDX which CWT claims should have been paid to it—even though the entire premise 

and basis for seeking those tax credits rested on fraudulent misrepresentations and actions by 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 204 Filed 08/22/19 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

CWT related to the bogus biodiesel production facility it deceived RDX into purchasing from it. 

On information and belief, the USAO-Arizona’s investigation into Dennis Danzik was initiated 

at the request of CWT’s New York law firm, Schlam Stone & Dolan, which also enlisted Ryan 

Rapp & Underwood as CWT’s local Arizona counsel in its pursuit of anyone and anything even 

remotely or tangentially associated with Dennis Danzik. 

The law firm of Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. (“W&B”) represented Dennis Danzik with 

respect to the USAO-Arizona’s investigation of him and asked the lead investigator, Mr. Sexton, 

if he was going to investigate the underlying fraud by CWT in falsely claiming its biodiesel facility 

qualified for tax credits in the first place. Mr. Sexton claimed he had no jurisdiction over CWT, 

but had no reasonable explanation for why he could not instigate such an investigation by another 

USAO that would have jurisdiction. 

As part of his efforts to exonerate himself and explain his situation, Dennis Danzik reached 

out to Congressman David Schweikert to see if he or someone from his office could introduce 

him to someone “at the right level” within the USAO-Arizona. Congressman Schweikert’s Chief 

of Staff, Oliver Schwab contacted a Mr. Lopez at the USAO-Arizona to make that introduction 

and, as a result, Dennis Danzik was ultimately able to speak directly to Mr. (now Judge) Lanza, 

the head of the criminal division. See Exhibit A, emails dated September 14, 2015. The current 

status of the investigation into Dennis Danzik by the USAO-Arizona is unknown, but there has 

been no indication that the investigation was ever dropped. What is clear, however, is that Judge 

Lanza oversaw that investigation and had direct contact with Dennis Danzik related to it.

Now, in this action, CWT has repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations that the 

Movants/Subpoenaed Individuals are somehow tied to Dennis Danzik or acting under his direction 

and control—including claiming that they are all “in cahoots.” Based on the Court’s rulings on 

various discovery issues, including its imposition of sanctions on other nonparty investors who 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 204 Filed 08/22/19 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

were previously subpoenaed, it might well appear to a reasonable onlooker that Judge Lanza has 

been swayed by his prior knowledge of Dennis Danzig and CWT’s assertions regarding anyone 

who has ever had contact with him, as if those speculative allegations are factual. At the very 

least, it can be reasonably argued that the mere appearance of impropriety and possible bias casts 

a shadow over Judge Lanza’s continuing service as the judge in this case. Therefore, the 

Subpoenaed Individuals are respectfully asking that he recuse himself and permit another judge 

who has no history with Dennis Danzik (1) to review and rule on their Motion to Quash this latest 

round of subpoenas issued by CWT, and (2) to continue presiding over the matter in the future.

ARGUMENT

28 U.S.C.A. § 455 governs when a judge must recuse himself. As it relates to this case, 

455(b)(3) states a judge shall recuse himself:

Where he has served in governmental employment and in such

capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness 

concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the 

merits of the particular case in controversy.

Id. Here, Judge Lanza was clearly involved, either personally or due to his supervisory 

responsibilities, with the Danzik investigation. As such, he was privy to documents and evidence 

which could appear to bias him against Danzik. Furthermore, he reportedly was and is a close 

friend of Kevin Rapp who is still with the USAO-Arizona, and whose brother’s firm is 

representing the CWT Parties before Judge Lanza. That alone might have prompted Judge Lanza 

to recuse himself. Since he did not, Movants now ask him to do so to ensure that all future matters 

are heard by another judge who has not yet formed any opinions about Dennis Danzik or other 

individuals, like Movants, who have merely invested in technology invented by Dennis Danzik 

that is now controlled and owned by Wyo Tech, as being somehow tainted through guilt by 

association. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 204 Filed 08/22/19 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Disqualification and recusal are favored where there is any question of impartiality. 

Nicholas v Alley, C.A. 10 (Okla. 1995, 71 F.3d 347; Hall v Small Business Admin., C.A.5 (Miss.) 

1983, 695 F.2d 175. An objective, reasonable-person standard applies to the “impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned” criterion of the federal statutory recusal standard. U.S. v. Wecht, C.A.3 

(Pa.) 2007, 484 F.3d 194, as amended, on remand 2007 WL 2029281.

Recusal in situations wherein the judge has pretrial knowledge of the facts of the case is 

appropriate only when the information is derived from an extrajudicial source; knowledge 

obtained in the course of earlier participation in the same case does not require that a judge recuse 

himself. U.S. v. Winston, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1980, 613 F.2d 221. Here, the extrajudicial source is Judge 

Lanza’s time and work at the US Attorney’s office.

Recusal is required, even when a judge lacks actual knowledge of the facts indicating his 

interest or bias in the case, if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect 

that the judge would have actual knowledge; what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice 

but its appearance. U.S. v. Sierra Pacific Industries, E.D.Cal.2010, 759 F.Supp.2d 1198. In this 

case, there is no question Judge Lanza was connected to the criminal investigation into Danzik, 

where some of those facts are allegedly involved in this case. Accordingly, it is respectfully 

submitted that Judge Lanza has extrajudicial information that requires recusal.

CONCLUSION

This Court should immediately recuse itself based on §28 U.S.C.A. 433(b)(3), this motion, 

and the supporting documentation contained herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 22nd day of August 2019.

THOMAS A. ZLAKET, P.L.L.C.

/s/ Thomas A. Zlaket

Thomas A. Zlaket, Esq.

310 South Williams Boulevard, Suite 170

Tucson, Arizona 85711-4446

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 204 Filed 08/22/19 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Email: tom@zlaketlaw.com

Attorney for Nonparty Movants

ORIGINAL electronically filed August 22, 2019.

COPY served via CM/ECF System, which 

sends notification to all parties registered 

therein this 22nd day of August 2019.

 /s/ Carol L. Davis

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 204 Filed 08/22/19 Page 6 of 6