EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 1 of 25
WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC 

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

Richard K. Walker, SBN 004159

WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC

16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2236

rkw@azlawpartner.com

Phone: (480) 483-6336

Facsimile: (480) 483-6337

Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Claimant/Third Party Plaintiff Wyo Tech 

Investment Group, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC; CWT 

Canada II Limited Partnership, Resources 

Recovery Corporation; and Jean Noelting,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-04140-JJT

DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT/

CROSS-CLAIMANT/THIRD PARTY 

PLAINTIFF WYO TECH 

INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC’S 

RESPONSES TO THE MANDATORY 

INITIAL DISCOVERY PILOT 

PROJECT REQUESTS

[Assigned to the Honorable John J. Tuchi]

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

Counterdefendant.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 2 of 25
2

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC,

Cross-Claimant,

vs.

CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, 

Resources Recovery Corporation; and 

Jean Noelting,

Cross-Defendants.

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC,

Third Party Plaintiff,

vs.

Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, a New York 

Limited Liability Partnership, and Joshua 

Wurtzel,

Third Party Defendants.

Pursuant to the Court’s Notice to Parties – Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot

Project (Doc. 5), issued November 9, 2017, Defendant WYO TECH INVESTMENT 

GROUP, LLC (“WYO TECH”), hereby submits the following responses to the 

Mandatory Initial Discovery Requests:

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 1:

State the names and, if known, the address and telephone numbers of all persons 

who you believe are likely to have discoverable information relevant to any party’s 

claims or defenses, and provide a fair description of the nature of the information each 

such person is believed to possess.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 3 of 25
3

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

RESPONSE TO MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 1:

(a) William J. Hinz, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Member of WYO 

TECH (c/o Richard K. Walker, Walker & Peskind, PLLC, SGA Corporate 

Center, Suite 140, 16100 N. 71st Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254, 480-483-

6336). Mr. Hinz is expected to have discoverable information including the 

facts that: (i) none of the funds deposited in WYO TECH’s account with a 

Scottsdale, Arizona branch of Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., bearing an account number ending in -2809 (“WYO TECH’s 

Account No. -2809”), belong to either Dennis M. Danzik (“Danzik”) or RDX 

Technologies Corporation (“RDX”) (f/k/a Ridgeline Energy Services, Inc.) 

(collectively “the Judgment Debtors”); (ii) neither of the Judgment Debtors has 

or claims any right, title, or interest in funds now held in WYO TECH’s Account 

No. -2809; (iii) neither of the Judgment Debtors has or has ever had any 

membership or other equity interest in WYO TECH; and (iv) WYO TECH does 

not currently owe any money to Danzik or RDX.

(b) Dennis M. Danzik, one of the Judgment Debtors (c/o Dennis I. Wilenchik, 

Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C., 2810 N. Third Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, 602-

606-2810), is expected to have discoverable information including the facts that: 

(i) WYO TECH is not, and never has been, a party and has not otherwise 

participated in GEM HOLDCO, LLC, et al. v. CWT Canada II Limited 

Partnership, et al., Case Index No. 650841/2013, in the Supreme Court of the 

State of New York, County of New York (“the GEM HOLDCO case”); (ii) 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 4 of 25
4

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

neither he nor RDX have ever deposited funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -

2809, and neither of them claim any right, title, or interest in any of the funds 

currently held in said account; (iii) neither he nor RDX hold, or have ever held,

any membership or other equity interest in WYO TECH; and (iv) WYO TECH 

does not currently owe any money to him or to RDX.

(c) Tony Ker, sole director of RDX (c/o Dennis I. Wilenchik, Wilenchik & Bartness, 

P.C., 2810 N. Third Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, 602-606-2810), is expected 

to have discoverable information including the facts that: (i) RDX made no 

deposits of funds into WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809; (ii) RDX claims no 

right, title, or interest in any funds currently held in WYO TECH’s Account No. -

2809; (iii) RDX does not hold, and has never, held any membership or other 

equity interest in WYO TECH; and (iv) WYO TECH does not currently owe any 

money to RDX.

(d) Jeffrey M. Eilender, Senior Partner, Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP (“Schlam 

Stone”) (c/o Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, 26 Broadway, New York, New York 

1004, 212-344-5400), is expected to have discoverable information pertaining to: 

(i) the parties to the GEM HOLDCO case; (ii) the judgment obtained by CWT 

Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, and Jean 

Noelting (collectively, “Judgment Creditors”) in the GEM HOLDCO case against 

the Judgment Debtors, and the circumstances leading up to and culminating in said 

judgment; (iii) the circumstances leading up to and culminating in the issuance of 

a Restraining Notice directing Wells Fargo to freeze funds in WYO TECH’s 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 5 of 25
5

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

Account No. -2809; (iii) directions he gave to Joshua Wurtzel regarding the 

issuance of the aforementioned Restraining Notice;1(iv) directions he gave to 

Joshua Wurtzel concerning responses to be provided to WYO TECH’s counsel 

after the latter informed them, inter alia, of the fact that the Judgment Debtors had 

no right, title, or interest in any of the funds held by WYO TECH in its Account 

No. -2809; and (iv) his basis or bases for refusing to withdraw the Restraining 

Notice and advise Wells Fargo that further impoundment of WYO TECH’s funds 

was not required after having been informed that Judgment Debtors had no right, 

title or interest in funds held in said account.

(e) Joshua Wurtzel, Associate, Schlam Stone (c/o Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, 26 

Broadway, New York, New York 1004, 212-344-5400), is expected to have 

discoverable information pertaining to: (i) the parties to the GEM HOLDCO case; 

(ii) the judgment obtained by CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource 

Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting (collectively, “Judgment Creditors”) in 

the GEM HOLDCO case against the Judgment Debtors, and the circumstances 

leading up to and culminating in said judgment; (iii) the circumstances leading up 

to and culminating in the issuance of a Restraining Notice directing Wells Fargo to 

freeze funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809; (iii) directions he received 

from Jeffrey M. Eilender regarding the issuance of the aforementioned Restraining 

 

1

 Although WYO TECH named Joshua Wurtzel as a Third-Party Defendant in its 

original Third-Party Complaint (Doc. 17), as a result of discussion among counsel, WYO 

TECH anticipates filing its First Amended Answer, Counterclaim, Cross-Claim, and 

Third-Party Complaint within the next few days that will, inter alia, substitute Mr. 

Eilender for Mr. Wurtzel as a Third-Party Defendant.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 6 of 25
6

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

Notice; (iv) directions he received from Jeffrey Eilender concerning responses to 

be provided to WYO TECH’s counsel after the latter informed them, inter alia, of 

the fact that the Judgment Debtors had no right, title, or interest in any of the funds 

held by WYO TECH in its Account No. -2809; and (iv) his understanding of the 

basis or bases for refusing to withdraw the Restraining Notice and advise Wells 

Fargo that further impoundment of WYO TECH’s funds was not required after 

having been informed that Judgment Debtors had no right, title or interest in funds 

held in said account.

(f) Peter A. Ragone, Partner in Rosner Nocera & Ragone, LLP (c/o Rosner Nocera 

& Ragone, LLP, 6 Broadway, Suite 1900, New York, New York 10006-2706, 

212-635-2244), is expected to have discoverable information regarding 

communications in his capacity as counsel to Wells Fargo with: (i) WYO TECH 

concerning the invalidity of the Restraining Notice that prompted Wells Fargo to 

impound the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809, the ineffectiveness of the 

Restraining Notice under New York law to effect a restraint on funds in accounts 

in locations other than that where the Restraining Notice was served, and the fact 

that the Judgment Debtors had no right, title, or interest in any of the funds in 

WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809; and (b) any communications with Schlam 

Stone regarding WYO TECH and/or WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809.

(g) John P. Foudy, Associate with Rosner Nocera & Ragone, LLP (c/o Rosner 

Nocera & Ragone, LLP, 6 Broadway, Suite 1900, New York, New York 10006-

2706, 212-635-2244), is expected to have discoverable information regarding 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 7 of 25
7

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

communications in his capacity as counsel to Wells Fargo with: (i) WYO TECH 

concerning the invalidity of the Restraining Notice that prompted Wells Fargo to 

impound the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809, the ineffectiveness of the 

Restraining Notice under New York law to effect a restraint on funds in accounts 

in locations other than that where the Restraining Notice was served, and the fact 

that the Judgment Debtors had no right, title, or interest in any of the funds in 

WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809; and (b) any communications with Schlam 

Stone regarding WYO TECH and/or WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809.

(h) One or more employees of Wells Fargo (c/o Barbara Dawson, Carlie Tovrea, 

and Matt Jarvey, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren 

Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, 602-382-6000), is/are expected to have 

discoverable information pertaining to: (i) the establishment, nature, and location 

of WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809; (ii) communications between 

representatives of WYO TECH and Wells Fargo representatives related to WYO 

TECH’s Account No. -2809; and (iii) communications between representatives of 

the Judgment Creditors and Wells Fargo representatives related to WYO TECH’s 

Account No. -2809.

(i) Jean Noelting, one of the Judgment Creditors (c/o Jeffrey Eilender and Joshua 

Wurtzel, Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, 26 Broadway, New York, New York 

10004, 212-344-5400), is expected to have discoverable information concerning 

evidence within his possession, custody, or control, providing any basis for 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 8 of 25
8

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

concluding that either of the Judgment Debtors has any right, title, or interest in 

any portion of the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809.

(j) One or more partners or employees of CWT Canada II Limited Partnership 

(“CWT”), one of the Judgment Creditors (c/o Jeffrey Eilender and Joshua 

Wurtzel, Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, 26 Broadway, New York, New York

10004, 212-344-5400), is/are expected to have discoverable information 

concerning evidence within the possession, custody, or control of CWT, if any, 

providing any basis for concluding that either of the Judgment Debtors has any 

right, title, or interest in any portion of the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -

2809.

(k) One or more employees of Resource Recovery Corporation (“RRC”), one of 

the Judgment Creditors (c/o Jeffrey Eilender and Joshua Wurtzel, Schlam Stone & 

Dolan, LLP, 26 Broadway, New York, New York 10004, 212-344-5400), is/are

expected to have discoverable information concerning evidence within the 

possession, custody, or control of RRC, if any, providing any basis for concluding 

that either of the Judgment Debtors has any right, title, or interest in any portion of 

the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809.

(l) Any witness necessary to establish foundation and/or authenticity of any 

documents disclosed or produced in this litigation.

(m) Any witnesses identified by any party in disclosures, discovery responses, or 

documents disclosed or produced in this litigation.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 9 of 25
9

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 2:

State the names and, if known, the addresses and telephone numbers of all persons 

who you believe have given written or recorded statements relevant to any party’s claims 

or defenses. Unless you assert privilege or work product protection against disclosure 

under applicable law, attach a copy of each such statement if it is in your possession, 

custody, or control. If not in your possession, custody, or control, state the name and, if 

known, the address and telephone number of each person who you believe has custody of 

a copy.

RESPONSE TO MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 2:

(a) Declaration of William J. Hinz dated November 1, 2017 (copy attached, Bates 

Nos. WYOTECH00001-2);

(b) Declaration of Dennis M. Danzik dated November 2, 2017 (copy attached, 

Bates Nos. WYOTECH00003-4); and

(c) Declaration of Elizabeth J. Danzik dated November 2, 2017 (copy attached, 

Bates Nos. WYOTECH00005-6).

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 3:

List the documents, electronically stored information (“ESI”), tangible things, 

land, or other property known by you to exist, whether or not in your possession, custody 

or control, that you believe may be relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. To the 

extent the volume of any such materials makes listing them individually impracticable, 

you may group similar documents or ESI into categories and describe the specific 

categories with particularity. Include in your response the names, and, if known, the 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 10 of 25
10

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

address and telephone numbers of the custodians of the documents, ESI, or tangible 

things, land, or other property that are not in your possession, custody, or control. For 

documents and tangible things in your possession, custody, or control, you may produce 

them with your response, or make them available for inspection on the date of the 

response, instead of listing them. Production of ESI will occur in accordance with 

paragraph C.2 below.

RESPONSE TO MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 3:

(a) Judgment apparently entered on or about September 7, 2016 in the GEM 

HOLDCO case (copy attached, Bates Nos. WYOTECH00007-12); 

(b) Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena issued on or about October 18, 

2017 by Joshua Wurtzel of Schlam Stone in the GEM HOLDCO case and 

apparently served on Wells Fargo shortly thereafter (copy attached, Bates Nos.

WYOTECH00013-40);

(c) Declaration of William J. Hinz dated November 1, 2017 (copy attached, Bates 

Nos. WYOTECH00001-2);

(d) Declaration of Dennis M. Danzik dated November 2, 2017 (copy attached,

Bates Nos. WYOTECH00003-4);

(e) Declaration of Elizabeth J. Danzik dated November 2, 2017 (copy attached, 

Bates Nos. WYOTECH00005-6);

(f) Letter dated November 2, 2017 from Richard K. Walker to John P. Foudy and 

Peter A. Ragone (copy attached, Bates Nos. WYOTECH00041-56);

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 11 of 25
11

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

(g) Letter dated November 6, 2017 from Joshua Wurtzel to Richard K. Walker 

(copy attached, Bates Nos. WYOTECH00057-60);

(h) Letter dated November 8, 2017 from Peter A. Ragone and John P. Foudy to 

Richard K. Walker (copy attached, Bates Nos. WYOTECH00061-64); 

(i) Letter dated November 8, 2017 from Richard K. Walker to Joshua Wurtzel

(copy attached, Bates Nos. WYOTECH00065-67); and

(j) Wells Fargo Business Account Agreement (available through Barbara J. 

Dawson, Carlie Shae Tovrea, and Matt Jarvey, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, One 

Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202, 

602-383-6000).

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 4:

For each of your claims or defenses, state the facts relevant to it and the legal 

theories upon which it is based.

RESPONSE TO MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 4:

(a) Wells Fargo Interpleader Complaint.

As noted in WYO TECH’s Response to Wells Fargo’s Motion to Interplead Funds 

and for Order of Discharge (Doc. 7), “WYO TECH does not object to interpleader of its 

funds as a first step toward restoring its rightful access to its own funds.” WYO TECH 

Resp. to Interpleader Motion (Doc. 13) at 3.2 Because Wells Fargo bears some of the 

 

2

 The other Defendants to Wells Fargo’s Interpleader Complaint, CWT Canada II 

Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting, accepted 

service of, inter alia, Wells Fargo’s Complaint and Motion to Interplead Funds on 

November 29, 2017 (Doc. 10). They have never responded to the aforementioned 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 12 of 25
12

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

culpability for the wrongful deprivation of WYO TECH’s access to its funds on deposit 

with a Scottsdale, Arizona branch of Wells Fargo, however, WYO TECH opposes Wells 

Fargo’s attempt to side-step liability for its own wrongful actions by seeking an order 

discharging it from liability, dismissing it from this action, and restraining WYO TECH 

from instituting or prosecuting any action against Wells Fargo. See Interpleader Motion 

at 6. Because of Wells Fargo’s participation in the unlawful actions by which WYO 

TECH has been deprived of funds needed for its operations, WYO TECH also opposes as 

inequitable Wells Fargo’s request that it be awarded its fees and costs in bringing the 

interpleader action.

The Restraining Notice on the strength of which Wells Fargo impounded WYO 

TECH’s funds stated only that “it appears that you are in possession or in custody of 

property in which the judgment debtor [sic] has an interest,” and then identified WYO 

TECH’s Account No. -2809. Rest. Not. at WYOTECH00014 (emphasis added). On its 

face, the Restraining Notice identified not WYO TECH, but Dennis M. Danzik and RDX, 

as the Judgment Debtors in the action underlying the notice, and it made no attempt to 

establish or even suggest a link between the Judgment Debtors and any portion, let alone 

all, of the funds in WYO TECH’s account. Id. at WYOTECH00013. The Restraining 

Notice stated that Wells Fargo was “forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment, or 

transfer of, or any interference with any property in which the judgment debtors have an 

interest . . . .” Id. at WYOTECH00017 (emphasis added). 

 

Motion. Accordingly, they have waived any objection they might otherwise have had to 

the proposed interpleader.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 13 of 25
13

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

The Restraining Notice purported to have been issued pursuant to Section 5222(b) 

of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) of the State of New York, and it included 

a copy of CPLR § 5222(b). Id. at WYOTECH00017-00018. That provision states, in 

pertinent part:

A restraining notice served upon a person other than the judgment 

debtor or obligor is effective only if, 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 knows or has 

reason to believe the judgment debtor or obligor has an interest, or if 

the judgment creditor . . . has stated in the notice that a specified debt is 

owed by 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 custody of the person served.

CPLR § 5222(b); Rest. Not. at WYOTECH00018.

Clearly, Wells Fargo, the person served with the Restraining Notice, did not, at the 

time it was served, owe a debt to either of the Judgment Debtors. Nor did Wells Fargo 

know or have any reason to believe, at the time of service, that either of the Judgment 

Debtors had an interest in WYO TECH’s funds, and the Restraining Notice itself did 

nothing to supply such knowledge or reason to believe. Further, the Judgment Creditors 

did not state in the Restraining Notice that a “specified debt” was owed by Wells Fargo 

(the person served) to either of the Judgment Debtors. Finally, the Restraining Notice 

states only that “it appears” that Wells Fargo was in possession of property in which the 

Judgment Debtors have an interest, while offering nothing to suggest that the 

“appearance” had any basis in fact. Nevertheless, apparently without having done 

anything to determine whether there was any evidence of any kind sufficient to support 

an inference of a connection between WYO TECH’s funds and the Judgment Debtors, or 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 14 of 25
14

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

if there was such a connection, then to what portion of the funds in Account No. -2809

such connection applied, Wells Fargo unquestioningly froze all the funds in the account, 

depriving WYO TECH of access to operating capital needed for the transaction of its 

day-to-day business affairs.

Wells Fargo seeks shelter behind its Business Account Agreement that, it points 

out, purports to absolve it of any responsibility to make any independent determination as 

to the validity of an “adverse claim,” authorize it to freeze part or all of its customer’s 

funds, and further authorize it to collect its attorney’s fees and expenses in responding to 

such a claim. There are at least three problems with Wells Fargo’s argument that the 

Business Account Agreement renders it blameless with regard to the impoundment of 

WYO TECH’s funds.

First, the Business Account Agreement is clearly a contract of adhesion whose 

terms, as interpreted by Wells Fargo, are beyond the reasonable expectations of its 

banking customers and unconscionable. See Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, 

Ltd., 173 Ariz. 148, 840 P.2d 1013 (1992). Wells Fargo effectively takes the position 

that when it is presented with the mere suggestion that it “appears” a judgment debtor has 

an interest in funds in the account of a bank customer, it has an unfettered right, without 

expending the slightest effort to ascertain whether the party making the assertion has any 

legitimate basis for it, to deny the customer access to funds in the customer’s account 

with impunity. Especially in light of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that 

Arizona law imputes to every contract (see below), this falls far below the reasonable 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 15 of 25
15

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

expectation of customers entrusting their funds to safekeeping with a banking institution 

as to the bank’s obligation to safeguard such funds against interlopers.

Second, the Wells Fargo Business Account Agreement provides, in pertinent part: 

“We will accept and act on any legal process we believe to be valid . . . .” The use of the 

word “believe” in this context necessarily imports a good faith basis for the belief, and 

that would be the reasonable expectation of every customer who reads this language.

Third, as mentioned above, Arizona law imports an implied covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing into every contract. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 153, 726 P.2d 

565, 569 (1986).3 Thus, even if the language in the Business Account Agreement did not 

itself imply that Wells Fargo’s belief in the legitimacy of legal process, the implied 

covenant engrafts such a requirement onto the express provisions of the agreement.

Under the circumstances of this case, where Wells Fargo had (and still has) no 

basis for believing that the Judgment Debtors have an interest of any kind in WYO 

TECH’s funds, where the Restraining Notice provides no basis for such a belief, and 

where the statutory authority on which the Restraining Notice was supposedly issued 

expressly states it is not valid unless certain unfulfilled conditions are met, Wells Fargo 

clearly had, and still to this day has, no good faith basis for concluding that either of the 

Judgment Debtors has any interest in the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809.

 

3

 “The doctrine of Erie Railroad Company v. Thompkins, which requires a federal court

sitting in a diversity action to apply the substantive law of the forum state, is fully 

applicable in interpleader actions.” CHAS. ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY 

KAY KANE, 7 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1713 (3d ed. 2001) (citation 

omitted). This applies to issues pertaining to the rights of claimants to the fund, rights of 

the claimants against the stakeholder, and cross-claims between the claimants. Id. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 16 of 25
16

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

But even if the Restraining Notice had been valid and had provided a facially 

colorable basis for Wells Fargo to conclude as a preliminary that the Judgment Debtors 

might have some interest in some identifiable portion of WYO TECH’s funds, the bank 

was clearly put on notice of both the defects in the Restraining Notice itself, and the fact 

that neither Judgment Debtor had any right, title, or interest in WYO TECH’s funds, 

upon receipt of the November 2, 2017 letter from WYO TECH’s counsel. That letter 

also put Wells Fargo’s lawyers, themselves members of the New York bar and 

presumably knowledgeable in matters of New York law, on notice of the fact that an 

otherwise valid Restraining Notice served on the bank in New York is not sufficient, as a 

matter of New York law, to require the impoundment of funds on deposit with a Wells 

Fargo branch in Arizona. Although this point was questioned by Wells Fargo’s lawyers, 

it is clear that this has been the law in New York for well over 100 years. See Det 

Bergenske Dampskibsselskab v. Sabre Shipping Corporation, 341 F.2d 50, 53 (2nd Cir. 

1965). Thus, even apart from the inherent defects in the Restraining Notice that Wells 

Fargo took to compel action on its part, it had no legal basis for impounding funds 

deposited in one of its branches more than 2,000 miles away. 

(b) WYO TECH Counterclaim vs. Wells Fargo.

For all the reasons set forth in the preceding section, Wells Fargo had no lawful 

basis for impounding WYO TECH’s funds and is liable to WYO TECH for wrongful 

garnishment. See Valley Natn’l Bank v. Brown, 110 Ariz. 260, 263, 517 P.2d 1256, 1259 

(1974). For the same reasons, Wells Fargo, in its unquestioning acquiescence in the 

scheme of Judgment Creditors and their counsel to deprive WYO TECH of access to 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 17 of 25
17

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

funds needed for its operations aided and abetted Judgment Creditors and their counsel in 

commission of the torts of wrongful garnishment and tortious interference with WYO 

TECH’s contractual relations and business expectancies (see below).

(c) WYO TECH Cross-Claim vs. CWT Canada II Ltd. Partnership, 

Resources Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting.

The Judgment Creditors, at the time the Restraining Notice was issued, were in 

possession of no evidence that any of the funds in WYO TECH’s Account No. -2809 

belonged to either of the Judgment Debtors, Dennis Danzik and RDX, or that the 

Judgment Debtors had any right, title, or interest in such funds. After receiving the 

November 2, 2017 letter from WYO TECH’s counsel (Bates No. WYOTECH00041-56), 

Judgment Debtors were on notice that, in fact, all the funds in WYO TECH’s Account 

No. -2809 were investor monies, and that Danzik had no right, title, or interest in such 

funds. It appears that the Restraining Notice was issued solely based on supposition and 

speculation that WYO TECH was some sort of shell used by Danzik to hide his assets 

from the Judgment Creditors. Once counsel for WYO TECH intervened and put 

Judgment Creditors and their counsel on notice that their suppositions and speculation 

about WYO TECH and the sources of its funds were baseless, however, Judgment 

Creditors and their counsel continued to refuse to withdraw the Restraining Notice and 

notify Wells Fargo that impoundment of WYO TECH’s funds was no longer required. 

At that point, Judgment Creditors, through their counsel, began demanding access to 

WYO TECH’s confidential corporate documents. See letter dated November 6, 2017 

from Joshua Wurtzel to Richard K. Walker (Bates Nos. WYOTECH00057-60); letter 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 18 of 25
18

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

dated November 8, 2017 from Richard K. Walker to Joshua Wurtzel (Bates Nos.

WYOTECH00065-67). Judgment Creditors seem to believe that, because they suspect

the Judgment Debtors have some sort of interest in WYO TECH’s funds, WYO TECH 

bears the burden of proving that not to be the case by throwing open its confidential 

business records and allowing Judgment Creditors to rummage through such records at 

will. In the meantime, WYO TECH’s funds will continue to be held hostage until such 

time as Judgment Creditors get what they want.

This stands the parties’ respective burdens on their heads. It is Judgment Creditors 

who must first have evidence that a third party is in fact holding property in which the 

Judgment Debtors have an interest. Only then do Judgment Creditors have any right to 

impair the third party’s access to, and use of, funds it is holding. Judgment Creditors 

have had ample opportunity to come forward with evidence that the Judgment Debtors 

have an interest in WYO TECH’s funds and, if so, to what extent, since having received 

the November 2, 2017 letter from WYO TECH’s counsel (Bates Nos. WYOTECH00041-

56), but they have failed to do so.

In issuing the Restraining Notice without an evidentiary basis for asserting that 

Judgment Debtors had an interest in WYO TECH’s funds, Judgment Creditors committed 

the tort of wrongful garnishment under Arizona law, which they have compounded by 

continuing to refuse to withdraw the Restraining Notice since having been put on notice 

that Judgment Debtors have no such interest. In so doing, Judgment Claimants tortiously 

interfered with WYO TECH’s contractual relationship with Wells Fargo by causing it to 

impound and deprive WYO TECH of access to its funds, which Wells Fargo was 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 19 of 25
19

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

otherwise contractually bound to make available to WYO TECH on demand. In addition, 

Judgment Creditors have, by wrongfully causing the impoundment of WYO TECH’s 

funds, tortiously interfered with WYO TECH’s relationship with its investors, creating a 

deterrence for them to invest further in the company, and providing an impediment to 

WYO TECH’s ability to attract new investors. That these consequences would flow from 

Judgment Creditors’ actions in depriving WYO TECH of access to its funds was 

foreseeable and known to Judgment Creditors, both the time they caused the Restraining 

Notice to issue, and subsequently as they have continued to refuse to withdraw the 

Restraining Notice.

In causing WYO TECH’s funds to be impounded and refusing to withdraw the 

Restraining Notice, Judgment Creditors have sought to have WYO TECH’s funds held 

hostage, and to obtain leverage to gain access to WYO TECH’s confidential business 

records. The demand for such documents was first put forth in a conference call on 

October 24, 2017 participated in by Judgment Creditors’ counsel (Joshua Wurtzel), Bill 

Hinz, WYO TECH’s Chief Executive Officer, and WYO TECH’s counsel (Richard 

Walker). It was later reiterated and reemphasized in the letter dated November 6, 2017 

from Joshua Wurtzel to Richard K. Walker (Bates Nos. WYOTECH00057-60). The use 

of the Restraining Notice and the deprivation of WYO TECH’s access to its funds that it 

caused for leverage to force the disclosure of WYO TECH’s confidential business record 

is an ulterior purpose not proper in the regular conduct of legal proceedings and, as such, 

constitutes an abuse of process under Arizona law.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 20 of 25
20

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

(d) WYO TECH Third Party Complaint vs. Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, and 

Jeffrey Eilender.

WYO TECH is informed that Joshua Wurtzel’s conduct in issuing the Restraining 

Notice, in continuing to refuse to withdraw it and restore WYO TECH’s access to its 

funds, and in demanding access to WYO TECH’s confidential business records were all 

done under the direction and control of Jeffrey Eilender, a senior partner with Schlam 

Stone, and lead counsel for the Judgment Creditors. For the reasons discussed above, 

these actions constituted wrongful garnishment, tortious interference with WYO TECH’s 

contractual relations and business expectancies, abuse of process, and aiding and abetting 

Judgment Creditors in their tortious conduct, liability for all of which is imputable to Mr. 

Eilender personally and to Schlam Stone.

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 5:

Provide a computation of each category of damages claimed by you, and a 

description of the documents or other evidentiary material on which it is based, including 

materials bearing on the nature and extent of the injuries suffered. You may produce the 

documents or other evidentiary materials with your response instead of describing them.

RESPONSE TO MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 5:

WYO TECH’s damages include attorney’s fees and costs incurred in seeking to 

have the Restraining Notice withdrawn, its access to its funds restored, and in 

participating in this action. Those fees to date total around $60,000, and are continuing to 

accrue. All such fees and costs are reflected in invoices that have been, and will continue 

to be, produced by the firm of Walker & Peskind, PLLC. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 21 of 25
21

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

In addition, WYO TECH is a start-up company in the early stages of its 

development. The deprivation of access to approximately $600,000 in operating capital 

for such a company is significant. The full extent of damages flowing from the wrongful 

conduct of Wells Fargo, the Judgment Creditors, and Judgment Creditors’ counsel is 

difficult to ascertain and still developing. The complete extent of investor alienation, and 

the resulting financial impact, may never be fully known. WYO TECH’s assessment of 

the extent of its monetary damages caused by the actions of Counterclaim Defendant, 

Cross-Claim Defendants, and Third-Party Defendants is on-going, and this response will 

be seasonably supplemented as further information becomes available.

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 6:

Specifically identify and describe any insurance or other agreement under which 

an insurance business or other person or entity may be liable to satisfy all or part of a 

possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse a party for payments made 

by the party to satisfy the judgment. You may produce a copy of the agreement with 

your response instead of describing it.

RESPONSE TO MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST NO. 6:

WYO TECH does not have an insurance policy or reimbursement or indemnity

agreement that in all reasonable possibility would be called upon to respond in whole or

in part to the claims in this lawsuit.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12

th day of January, 2018.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 22 of 25
22

WALKER

& PESKIND, PLLC

Attorneys and Counselors

16100 North 71st Street, Suite 140

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Telephone: (480) 483-6336

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

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

WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC

By:/s/ Richard K. Walker

 Richard K. Walker

 Walker & Peskind, PLLC

 16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140

 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2236

COPY of this document delivered via 

email and US Mail this 12

th day of January, 2018 to:

Barbara J. Dawson

Bdawson@swlaw.com

Carlie Shae Tovrea

ctovrea@swlaw.com

Matt Jarvey

mjarvey@swlaw.com

SNELL & WILMER LLP

One Arizona Center

400 E. Van Buren, Ste 1900

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Henk Taylor 

htaylor@rrulaw.com

RYAN RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C. 

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Bradley J. Nash

bnash@schlamstone.com

Jeffrey M. Eilender

jme@schlamstone.com

Joshua Wurtzel

jwurtzel@schlamstone.com

Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP

26 Broadway

New York, NY 10004

/s/ Michelle Giordano 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 23 of 25
u 

,-a 

,-a 0 

.i. ::': "' <7.l .B l,O 

~s~"~ ...... ::ll/)\0 <I) rll N r 

Ul "lf)~ §00000 

0 0 " 

r;/JU~~S 

la< " 00 ~~~(l)":!- 1⁄4 i:-- (rj ~ 

~ (>'i§ i § ~Eoo'° 0 z u fr 

~" -< O "'-0 0 C"' 

~ § 

~ 

1 Richard K. Walker, SBN 004159 

2 WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC 

16100 N. 7!81 Street, Suite 140 

3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2236 

rkw@azlawpartner.com 4 Phone: (480) 483-6336 

5 Facsimile: (480) 483-6337 

6 

7 

Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Claimant/Third Party Plaintiff Wyo Tech 

Investment Group, LLC 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC; CWT 

Canada II Limited Partnership, Resources 

Recovery Corporation; and Jean Noelting, 

Defendants. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, 

Counterclaimant, 

vs. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Counterdefendant. 

CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-04140-JJT 

WILLIAM J. HINZ'S VERIFICATION 

OF RESPONSES TO THE 

MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY 

PILOT PROJECT REQUESTS 

[Assigned to the Honorable John J. Tuchi] 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 24 of 25
1 

2 

3 

4 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, 

Cross-Claimant, 

vs. 

CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, 

5 Resources Recovery Corporation; and 

Jean Noelting, 

19 

20 

21 

Cross-Defendants. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, 

Third Party Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, a New York 

Limited Liability Partnership, and Joshua 

Wmizel, 

Third Party Defendants. 

William J. Hinz, hereby declares the following: 

1. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years and am a resident of the State of 

Arizona. 

2. I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the 

Responses to the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project Requests are true and correct 

22 to the best of my lmowledge, information and belief. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

EXECUTED this 12th day of January, 2018. 

2 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 174-1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 25 of 25