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

Dennis I. Wilenchik, #005350

WILENCHIK & BARTNESS PC

The Wilenchik & Bartness Building

2810 North Third Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

admin@wb-law.com

Leo R. Beus, #002687

BEUS GILBERT PLLC

701 North 44th Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85008

lbeus@beusgilbert.com

Attorneys for Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC

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.

WYO TECH Investment Group, LLC,

Cross-Claimant,

v.

CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, 

Resources Recovery Corporation, and Jean 

Noelting,

Cross-Claim Defendants.

WYO TECH Investment Group, LLC,

Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLC, a New York 

Limited Liability Partnership; and Jeffrey M. 

Eilender,

Third Party Defendants.

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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

EMERGENCY MOTION (DOC. 98)

(Oral Argument Requested)

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 110 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 6
1

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

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC (“Wyo Tech”), hereby files this Reply in Support of its 

Emergency Motion (Doc. 98). Due to the fact that the accounts causing the gravest concern at 

Bank of the West are no longer being restrained and those monies remaining restrained are limited 

to the point where it is not worth it in this proceeding to continue the time and expense of seeking 

emergency relief from this Court Wyo Tech is no longer seeking emergency intervention from 

this Court as requested in Doc. 98. As such, despite the fact that Wyo Tech does not agree with 

the contentions of the CWT Parties and they make numerous incorrect and erroneous legal and 

factual statements1

—for example, claiming that a New York Restraining Notice is valid to restrain 

property outside of New York even as to individuals or entities for which New York does not 

have personal jurisdiction, see e.g., McCarthy v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 759 F. Supp. 2d 265, 275 

(E.D.N.Y. 2011) (“a court sitting in New York that has personal jurisdiction over a garnishee 

bank can order the bank to produce [property] located outside of New York.” (emphasis added)); 

see also, Abuhamada v. Abuhamda, 236 A.D.2d 290, 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1997) (a 

person “which engages in business in the State [of New York] and is clearly subject to its 

jurisdiction [may be compelled to] refrain from paying out funds that are currently in one of its 

accounts, albeit one not physically located in New York” (emphasis added))—Wyo Tech 

withdraws the portions of its motion (Doc. 98) that do not relate to its request that this Court 

reconsider its ruling regarding personal jurisdiction. Nothing in this withdrawal should be 

construed as a waiver of any claims, arguments, or as having any effect on any other filings in this 

action, nor should it act as a ruling with prejudice from this Court. Wyo Tech specifically reserves 

 1 See Exhibits D, F – H.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 110 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 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

25

26

its rights to bring these claims, arguments, or otherwise at a later time in either this or another 

court.2

As stated, Wyo Tech does not withdraw its request that this Court reconsider its prior ruling 

relating to its personal jurisdiction over the CWT Parties. As such, Wyo Tech files this limited 

Reply in relation to that issue only. This Reply is supported by the following Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities and all other filings in this matter.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

In continuing to contest personal jurisdiction, the CWT Parties miss the point entirely. The 

arguments they make relate only to specific jurisdiction and are, in reality, entirely irrelevant to 

the issue at hand. For example, their quotation of Picot ignores that their argument only has a 

relation to specific jurisdiction. In full, the Picot court stated:

Our specific jurisdiction inquiry is limited to “the defendant’s suit-related 

conduct.” A plaintiff may not create personal jurisdiction over one claim by arguing 

that jurisdiction might be proper over a different, hypothetical claim not before the 

court.

Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1215 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis 

added). Rather, the new facts discovered by Wyo Tech, along with others described more fully 

herein, clearly establish that this Court, and in fact any Court in Arizona, has general personal 

jurisdiction over the CWT Parties and their attorneys.

Due Process requires that the nonresident defendant have “certain minimum contacts with 

[the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play 

 

2 Moreover, nothing in this withdrawal should be construed as effecting or otherwise prejudicing 

the current discovery dispute, supplemental briefing ordered by this Court in its Order (Doc. 109), 

or any argument made, or to be made, by Wyo Tech in this matter. To be clear, no concession of 

any kind is being made by the withdrawal of the portions of the Emergency Motion (Doc. 98) not 

related to Wyo Tech’s request that this Court reconsider its ruling on the issue of personal 

jurisdiction over the CWT Parties; rather, the withdrawal of this portion of Doc. 98 is being made 

simply on the basis of a cost/reward analysis and should not be construed as prejudicing Wyo 

Tech in any way.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 110 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 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

25

26

and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154,

90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (internal citation omitted). There are two types of personal jurisdiction, general 

and specific. General jurisdiction exists where a non-resident defendant engages in substantial, 

continuous or systematic activities within the forum. Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining, Co., 342

U.S. 437, 445, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). When a defendant has “substantial” or 

“continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state, general jurisdiction is proper even if 

the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant’s forum activities. Here, the CWT Parties and 

their attorneys have numerous, continuous, and systematic contacts with Arizona such that an 

exercise of general jurisdiction by a Court sitting in Arizona is proper. 

The CWT Parties have continually and consistently utilized the Courts in Arizona. For 

example, in Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2017-005401 the CWT Parties and their 

attorneys availed themselves to the Maricopa County Court to bring claims against Dennis 

Danzik, Elizabeth Danizk, and RDX Technologies. [Applications for Pro Hoc of Eilender, Nash, 

and Wurtzel in Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2017-005401 attached hereto as Exhibit A]. 

The same is true in this matter, as well as Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-00607 and 

Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-02577. [Docket Reports Showing Counsel and Party 

Designations for Arizona Districta Court Case No. 2:16-cv-00607 and Arizona District Court Case 

No. 2:16-cv-02577 attached hereto as Exhibit B]. The CWT Parties and their attorneys have sent 

Information and Restraining Notices—albeit invalid as they are—to at least the following seven 

(7) individuals and entities in Arizona: Dennis I. Wilenchik, Wilenchik & Bartness, Beus Gilbert, 

RDX Technologies, Autumn Danzik, Elizabeth Danzik, and Jovahna Danzik. [Relevant Pages of 

the aforementioned Restraining Notices and Information Subpoenas attached hereto as Exhibit 

C].

Moreover, Mr. Noelting has officed in Arizona and conducted several business meeting in 

Arizona. [Declaration of Anthony Ker, attached hereto as Exhibit D at ¶ 8; Exhibit F at ¶ 7 – 8]. 

In addition, Mr. Noelting and Mr. McFarlane attended RDX board meetings and contract 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 110 Filed 03/08/19 Page 4 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

25

26

negotiation discussions on several occasions at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort. [Exhibit D at ¶ 9; 

Exhibit F at ¶ 9]. Furthermore, Mr. Noelting’s daughter lives, works and resides in Arizona, 

whom he visits and stays with on a regular and recurring basis. [Exhibit D at ¶ 10; Exhibit E; 

Exhibit D at ¶ 10].

It is abundantly clear that this Court, and indeed any other Court in Arizona, has general 

personal jurisdiction over the CWT Parties and their attorneys. For example, in Perkins the 

Supreme Court of the United States found an Ohio court’s exercise of general jurisdiction 

permissible where the president of the foreign defendant “maintained an office,” “drew and 

distributed ... salary checks,” used “two active bank accounts,” “supervised ... the rehabilitation 

of the corporation’s properties in the Philippines,” and held “directors’ meetings,” in Ohio. 342

U.S., at 447–448, 72 S.Ct. 413. The same is true here, and as such, the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction over the CWT Parties and their attorneys is warranted. At a minimum, Wyo Tech 

should be allowed limited discovery relating to the CWT Parties and their attorneys’ contacts with 

Arizona. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons this Court should reconsider its previous decision regarding 

personal jurisdiction (Doc. 94) and find that there is personal jurisdiction over the CWT Parties 

and their attorneys and reverse this Court’s ruling (Doc. 94) dismissing Wyo Tech’s counterclaims 

and third party claims on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 110 Filed 03/08/19 Page 5 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

25

26

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED March 8, 2019.

WILENCHIK & BARTNESS, P.C.

/s/ Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq.

Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq.

The Wilenchik & Bartness Building

2810 North Third Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

admin@wb-law.com

BEUS GILBERT PLLC

Leo R. Beus, Esq.

701 North 44th Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85008

lbeus@beusgilbert.com

Attorneys for Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC

ELECTRONICALLY FILED March 8, 2019.

COPY served via CM/ECF System, which sends notification

to all parties registered therein this 8th day of March, 2019.

/s/ Hilary Myers

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 110 Filed 03/08/19 Page 6 of 6