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.

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

RESPONSE TO CWT PARTIES’ 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(Oral Argument Requested)

Counsel for Defendant Wyo Tech Investment Group, Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. (“WB”) 

and Beus Gilbert, PLLC (“BG”), hereby respond and object to the CWT Parties’ Motion for an 

Order to Show Cause (“Motion for OSC”), which was filed on May 13, 2019 by the CWT Parties 

(“CWT”) and ask the Court to reject and deny the Motion for OSC on the following grounds: (i) 

the Motion for OSC is a discovery motion that was filed in direct violation of Rule 7.2(j) of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”) without any prior attempt to 

discuss WB’s and BG’s alleged failure to comply with the Court’s Order dated April 9, 2019

(“Order”); (ii) contrary to the CWT’s assertions, WB and BG attempted to comply in good faith 

with the Order by preparing Responses to CWT’s subpoenas on April 26, 2019; (iii) WB and BG 

believed those Responses had been forwarded to CWT’s counsel on April 26, 2019 and since WB 

and BG received no objection (indeed, no reaction whatsoever) from CWT’s counsel regarding 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 10
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

those Responses, WB and BG assumed their Responses had been accepted by CWT and the 

discovery dispute over the subpoenas had been resolved; (iv) only when WB and BG received the 

Motion for OSC on May 13, 2019 did they learn that those Responses had not been delivered to 

CWT’s counsel on April 26, 2019; and (v) since discovering this inadvertent oversight, WB and 

BG have not only provided their April 26, 2019 Responses to CWT’s counsel, they have addressed 

CWT’s objections thereto by supplementing those original Responses with documents related to 

payments received by WB from Wyo Tech and Inductance, including copies of checks that were 

forwarded to CWT’s counsel today.

1

 There has been no deliberate attempt by either WB or BG

to flout the Order. Therefore, the Motion for OSC should be denied. This Response is supported 

by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of Victoria Stevens

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the inception of this case, CWT has constantly made speculative and misleading

assertions—without any proof—that, among other things, Dennis Danzik is “a former principal 

of Wyo Tech” and that Inductance is a “Danzik-related entity.” CWT has taken this tack to justify 

its transparent attempts to treat this case as if it were merely a “post-judgment proceeding.” CWT 

continues to behave as if its circular reasoning and bootstrapping arguments are unassailable when 

in reality CWT’s entire theory of its case is a flimsy house of cards made up of assumptions

stacked upon speculations and conjectures, all resting on the bogus assertion (i.e., the “big lie”)

 

1

 In their April 26, 2019 Responses, both WB and BG objected to CWT’s demand for evidence 

of payments received after October 18, 2017—the date the interpleaded funds were frozen by 

Wells Fargo. It remains WB’s position that any funds received by WB from Wyo Tech or 

Inductance after that date cannot possibly have any even theoretical relevance to the core question 

of whether any portion of the interpleaded funds at issue in this action are the property of Dennis 

Danzik, since those funds have been used exclusively to pay for WB’s services in representing 

Wyo Tech in this action or representing Danzik Applied Sciences—a company in which Mr. 

Danzik has no ownership interest—in another case. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 10
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

that Wyo Tech and Inductance may be treated as alter egos of Mr. Danzik without CWT having 

even made a prima facie case for such a claim. In keeping with that approach, CWT is now 

alleging—again without proof and without its counsel having even bothered to first contact WB 

or BG—that both of these highly-respected and reputable firms should be held in contempt and 

sanctioned. Enough is enough. There is no “grand conspiracy” here and the Court should not 

allow itself to be taken in by CWT’s unsubstantiated rhetoric and bluster or its disregard for the 

Local Rules of Practice.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Motion for OSC Violates Local Rule 7.2(j)

The Motion for OSC clearly qualifies as a “discovery motion” since CWT is seeking 

sanctions against WB and BG for their alleged failure to respond to CWT’s subpoenas. By CWT’s 

own admission, even if the Court were to grant its motion and find WB and BG in contempt, such 

a finding would have to include “conditions by which [that] contempt may be purged” and 

imposition of “the minimum sanction necessary to secure compliance....” [Motion for OSC, p.3, 

citing United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2010)]. In other words, CWT’s 

Motion for OSC asks the Court to compel WB and GB to produce certain documents on threat of 

sanction. That is the very definition of a “discovery motion” to which 7.2(j) of the Local Rules 

of Practice for the District of Arizona applies. That rule states:

No discovery motion will be considered or decided unless a statement 

of moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after personal 

consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to 

satisfactorily resolve the matter. 

Here, there is no such statement attached to the Motion for OSC because there was no personal 

consultation and no effort made by CWT’s counsel (let alone a “sincere effort”) to give WB or 

BG notice that CWT had received no responses to the subpoenas on April 26, 2019. On that basis 

alone, the Motion for OSC must be denied. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 10
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

As stated by Ms. Victoria Stevens in Exhibit A, WB’s and BG’s subpoena responses were 

prepared and finalized on April 26, 2019, and everyone involved with that process at WB and BG

believed those responses had been forwarded to CWT’s counsel that same day. Therefore, when 

they heard nothing from CWT about those responses, WB and BG reasonably assumed that the 

responses to the subpoenas had been received and accepted by CWT without objection. Had 

CWT’s counsel simply made a phone call or sent an email asking, “Where are your subpoena 

responses?”; WB and BG would have immediately cured their unrecognized failure to transmit 

the responses and would have also addressed any objections CWT might have had to those initial 

responses. Instead, CWT chose to remain mum for over two (2) weeks.

Thus, it came as a complete shock when CWT launched its surprise attack on May 13, 2019

in the form of its Motion for OSC, since this was the first time CWT claimed WB and BG’s 

responses were deficient. Upon receiving the Motion for OSC, WB and BG immediately 

contacted CWT’s counsel to point out that the firms had responded to the subpoenas and asked 

CWT to withdraw its Motion for OSC. CWT refused, claiming that WB and BG had violated the 

Court’s Order by failing to produce any documents. In response, WB and BG supplemented their 

original responses—the former by producing all relevant documents and the latter by making it 

clear that it has no responsive documents whatsoever. In so doing, WB and BG have rendered

the Motion for OSC entirely moot. 

The back-and-forth communication and actions by WB and BG, as described above, amply 

illustrate why Rule 7.2(j) exists. Had CWT complied with that rule instead of improperly jumping

the gun by filing the Motion for OSC without any attempt to first resolve the situation through 

consultation, there would have been no need for any motion practice at all and there is no need or 

reason for the Motion for OSC to even be heard. It should simply be denied. But even if the 

Court were to consider the Motion for OSC, the result would be the same since CWT has failed 

to establish that WB and BG deserve to be held in contempt or sanctioned.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 10
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

B. WB and BG Did Not Deliberately Flout the Court’s Order2

Wyo Tech and WB have consistently maintained that the only relevant events or acts 

related to the interpleaded funds are those that occurred up to, but not beyond, the point in time

when the restraining notice was issued. The basis for this argument was previously set forth by 

Wyo Tech and WB, but unfortunately rejected by the Court. However, WB was prepared to ask 

the Court to reconsider that argument after WB reviewed its records and determined that none of 

the funds it has received from Wyo Tech or Inductance have ever been used to pay for attorneys’ 

fees incurred by Dennis Danzik. Those funds have been used exclusively to pay for work done 

by WB on behalf of Wyo Tech, Inductance and Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC (“DAS”), an entity 

associated solely with Elizabeth Danzik, not Dennis Danzik. As such, those records are simply 

not relevant to anything. However, as it turned out—at least in WB’s view based on its belief that 

its response to the CWT subpoena had been received and not objected to—there appeared to be

no need to re-raise the issue with the Court.

Since then, the time to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order has long since run. 

Therefore, once the issue about the temporal scope of responsive documents was raised by CWT’s 

counsel in recent discussions with undersigned counsel, WB chose to concede on that point and 

produce all documents responsive to the subpoena for the entire time period defined therein. Most 

of those documents were provided to CWT’s counsel yesterday and by the time the Court reads 

this Response, WB will have provided CWT with all remaining records in its possession showing 

payments received from Wyo Tech and Inductance and how those funds have been applied to 

various client matters—none of which involved legal work on behalf of Dennis Danzik.

It has never been WB’s or BG’s intention to disregard or disrespect the Court’s Order as 

the circumstances described above clearly show. What happened in this situation was the result 

 

2

 The remainder of this Response is limited specifically to WB’s responses to the subpoena from 

CWT, since BG has never received any funds from either Wyo Tech or Inductance and therefore 

has no documents in its possession responsive to the CWT subpoena whatsoever.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 5 of 10
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

25

26

of excusable neglect by WB and its ignorance of the fact that the responses prepared on April 26, 

2019 did not get transmitted to CWT. There is simply no clear and convincing evidence that WB 

or BG willfully flouted the Court’s authority in this situation. Therefore, CWT’s request for 

sanctions and a finding of civil contempt must be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons the Motion for OSC should be denied and no sanctions 

imposed on WB. For its part, WB is not seeking the imposition of sanctions on counsel for CWT 

for their violation of Local Rule 7.2(j), even though the Court could clearly impose such sanctions 

if it chose to.3

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED May 15, 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

 

3

 “Any discovery motion brought before the Court without prior personal consultation with the 

other party and a sincere effort to resolve the matter, may result in sanctions.” Rule 7.2(j), Local 

Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona (emphasis added). 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 6 of 10
7

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 15, 2019, the foregoing document was electronically 

transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice 

of Electronic Filing to the individuals registered.

By: s/ Tyler Q. Swensen

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 8 of 10
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.

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

DECLARATION OF VICTORIA M. 

STEVENS 

(Oral Argument Requested)

Victoria M. Stevens, declares under penalty of perjury, as follows:

1. I am the Senior Paralegal at Wilenchik & Bartness and am assigned to the abovecaptioned matter.

2. Under the supervision of Counsel Dennis I. Wilenchik, Tyler Q. Swensen, and 

Chase R. Turrentine, I completed and revised the final version of the Responses to the Subpoenas 

duces Tecums for Beus Gilbert and Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.

3. On April 26, 2019, I worked with Beus Gilbert to get Leo Beus’ signature on the 

responses to the Subpoena Duces Tecum. I also secured Dennis Wilenchik’s signature on the 

W&B response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum. 

4. I was responsible for sending out those Responses to opposing counsel and I signed 

the mailing certificate.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 9 of 10
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

5. At 6:28 p.m., I finalized the Responses and sent them, via email, to opposing 

counsel—or so I thought. 

6. I recall preparing the email to Messrs. Eilender, Taylor and the team at W&B and 

attaching the Responses. 

7. In fact, after I had left for the day, I received an email from Jack Wilenchik, Esq., 

which was sent at 6:56 p.m. He asked me if I was taking care of the Responses. At 6:57 p.m., I 

sent him a response: “Done.”

8. Another email came in at 8:21 p.m. from Lisa Loftis, business manager at the firm, 

also checking on the status. At 8:23 p.m., I responded, “It was done. It has already been sent to 

opposing counsel.”

9. This was my last task of the day, and I was positive that I had sent it out, via email, 

as I was aware of the deadlines and the importance of the project. I do not, however, recall whether 

I sent it out, via regular mail. 

10. As soon as I found out about the Order to Show Cause, I checked my work and my 

emails. Had I known that I had made this mistake, I would have immediately sent this to opposing 

counsel. But opposing counsel never alerted me or my supervisors.

11. I take full responsibility for this oversight. It was not intentional. There would be 

no reason why I, as an employee of Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. for nearly ten (10) years, would 

deliberately or intentionally fail to send discovery responses to opposing counsel. It was an

inadvertent error, which I deeply regret. I apologize to counsel and the Court for my mistake.

I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746, that the foregoing is 

true and correct.

Victoria M. Stevens

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 134 Filed 05/15/19 Page 10 of 10