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

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN 

CWT PARTIES FROM ATTEMPTS 

TO UTILIZE NEW YORK 

RESTRAINING NOTICES TO 

RESTRAIN FUNDS OF 

NONDEBTORS AND NONDEBTOR 

ASSETS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF 

NEW YORK

AND

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

(Oral Argument Requested)

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 11
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 Emergency Motion 

requesting that this Court enter an injunction enjoining the CWT Parties from attempting to utilize 

NY CPLR § 5222 to Restrain Funds of nondebtors and their assets located in Arizona and staying 

the force or effect of any such Restraining Notices already issued or “served” by the CWT Parties 

on nondebtors or their assets in Arizona such that the restrained funds can be released. This action 

is necessary due to rampant abuse by the CWT Parties “serving” invalid and improper NY CPLR 

§ 5222 Restraining Notices in Arizona on numerous persons and entities, including Wyo Tech, 

Wilenchik & Bartnes, Beus Gilbert PLLC, and Inductance Energy Corporation (“IEC”) and their 

banking institutions.

Tellingly, the CWT Parties have domesticated the New York Judgment in the Superior 

Court of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, in Case No. CV2017-005401—which 

provides them with the proper mechanism under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 

Act to attempt collections in Arizona. In a contrived effort to avoid due process and the proper 

procedure to attempt collections they have instead ignored Arizona law and the domestication of 

the Judgment instead opting to send numerous and abusive Restraining Notices under New York 

law—that require no judicial intervention to be sent—all of which are improper to attempt 

collections on nondebtors outside the state of New York.

Indeed, it is clear that the purpose of the action taken by the CWT Parties is to make it so 

that undersigned counsel cannot be paid to represent Wyo Tech in this matter or any other, a grave 

violation of Wyo Tech’s rights that should not be taken lightly by this Court.

BACKGROUND

On February 8, 2019 the CWT Parties “served” such invalid and improper Restraining 

Notices on Wyo Tech’s counsel, Beus Gilbert PLLC and Wilenchik & Bartness PC [Exhibits A 

& B] in what is clearly an effort to prevent Wyo Tech from continued legal representation in this 

matter. The same day the CWT Parties “served” a similar invalid and improper Restraining Notice 

on Wyo Tech itself [Exhibit C]. The same day the CWT Parties “served” invalid and improper 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 11
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

Restraining Notices on Autumn Danzik, Jovahna Danzik, and Elizabeth Danzik. [Exhibits D, E, 

& F]. They served a similarly improper and invalid Restraining Notice on Bank of the West 

regarding accounts of nondebtor nonparty Inductance Energy Corporation (“IEC”) as well as on 

IEC itself. The result of this improper restraint is that today, Febraury 15, 2019, IEC will be 

unable to pay its twenty-eight (28) employees located in four (4) states—Arizona, Wyoming, 

Utah, and Nevada—their paychecks and will be unable to make required payments on those 

twenty-eight (28) employees health insurance possibly causing said health insurance to lapse. On 

information and belief subpoenas and restraining notices were also sent to nearly 100 investors in 

Wyo Tech and IEC by the CWT Parties. 

ARGUMENT

I. EMERGENCY MOTION

This Court should declare that the New York Restraining Notices and Information 

Subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable and enjoin the CWT Parties from further attempts to 

utilize NY CPLR § 5222 Restraining Notices and Information Subpoenas in their attempts to 

collect on the already domesticated Judgment against Dennis Danzik and RDX Technologies.

A. The New York Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction to Enforce the Restraining 

Notices and Information Subpoenas and Based Upon Such Lack of Jurisdiction 

This Court Should Declare that the Restraining Notices and Information 

Subpoenas are Invalid and Unenforceable.

The persons and entities served do not have sufficient ties to New York for a New York

Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them, as such, this Court should rule that the 

Restraining Notices and Information Subpoenas directed to them are unenforceable. See, e.g.,

First Am. Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLP, 154 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1998) (a court must have 

personal jurisdiction over a nonparty to compel it to comply); In re Sealed Case,141 F.3d 337,

341 (D.C.Cir.1998); In re Application to Enforce Admin. Subpoenas Duces Tecum of the S.E.C.

v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 418 (10th Cir.1996); see also 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice 

and Procedure, § 2956, at 555 (“court ordinarily does not have power to issue an order against a 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 3 of 11
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

person who is not a party and over whom it has not acquired in personam jurisdiction.”)

i. IEC

IEC is Wyoming Corporation with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona, 

with additional offices in North Las Vegas, Nevada, and Cheyenne, Wyoming. [Exhibit G]. IEC 

has no business dealings in New York, has not aimed its activities at New York, and in fact has 

zero connections let alone minimum contacts with New York. [Exhibit H, William Hinz 

Affidavit at ¶ 7]. As is clear, there is simply no evidence whatsoever, let alone sufficient evidence 

of minimum contacts, for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over IEC. Because a New 

York Court lacks personal jurisdiction over IEC it cannot enforce the Restraining Notice or 

Information Subpoena sent to it and this Court should declare that the Restraining Notice and 

Information Subpoena are therefore invalid and unenforceable.

ii. Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.

Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. is an Arizona Professional Corporation with its principal place 

of business in Arizona and all of its directors reside in Arizona. [Exhibit I]. While a Wilenchik 

& Bartness, P.C. attorney has appeared in New York pro hac vice this is insufficient to supply a 

New York Court with personal jurisdiction to enforce a Restraining Notice or Information 

Subpoena against the firm, Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. Moreover, it is likely even insufficient 

contact for a New York court to assert personal jurisdiction over the attorney himself. “[P]ro hac

vice admission is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction....” See Wolk v. Teledyne Industries,

Inc., 475 F.Supp.2d 491, 502 (E.D.Pa.2007) (finding that trips to Pennsylvania and pro hac vice

admission did not establish general jurisdiction) (citing Remick v. Manfredy, 52 F.Supp.2d 452,

457–58 n. 1 (E.D.Pa.1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other issues, 238 F.3d 248 (3d

Cir.2001) (for the proposition that a “pro hac vice admission, not continuous or substantial, did 

not support personal jurisdiction”); Sea Marsh Group, Inc. v. SC Ventures, Inc., 111 F.3d 129 (4th

Cir.1997) (quoting “[a]n attorney’s entry of a court appearance pro hac vice in the forum state, 

without more, is not substantial enough contact to permit this court to exercise jurisdiction over 

his person.”). With this exception, Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. has no business operations in New 

York and has not directed or otherwise aimed any of its activities at New York. Because a New 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 4 of 11
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

York Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. it cannot enforce the 

Restraining Notice or Information Subpoena sent to it and this Court should declare that the 

Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena are therefore invalid and unenforceable.

iii. Wyo Tech

Wyo Tech is a Wyoming Limited Liability Company whose member resides in Arizona. 

[Exhibit J]. Wyo Tech has no business dealings in New York, has not aimed its activities at New 

York, and in fact has zero connections let alone minimum contacts with New York. [Exhibit K, 

Affidavit of William Hinz at ¶ 5]. As is clear, there is simply no evidence whatsoever, let alone 

sufficient evidence of minimum contacts, for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction of Wyo 

Tech. Because a New York Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Wyo Tech it cannot enforce 

the Restraining Notice or Information Subpoena sent to it and this Court should declare that the 

Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena are therefore invalid and unenforceable.

B. The Funds to be Restrained are Outside of the Jurisdiction of New York and 

therefore the Restraining Notices are Invalid and Should be Quashed.

Beyond a New York Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction, a New York Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the alleged assets as they all are located outside of the territorial boundaries of 

New York. While, as will be discussed below, the entities and individuals who have been sent 

Restraining Notices hold no funds or assets of any Judgment Debtor, to the extent they did (which 

they do not), the Restraining Notices would be invalid as they attempt to restrain funds and/or 

assets located outside of New York. It is black letter law that Restraining Notices against 

Judgment Debtors are ineffective if the property to be restrained is located outside of New York

as restraining notices issued in connection with a New York proceeding does not reach property

in other jurisdictions. See ABKCO Indus. v Apple Films, 39 NY2d 670, 674-675 (1976) and Matter

of National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Advanced Empl. Concepts, 269 AD2d 101

(2000). If this were not the case there would have been no need for the enactment of the Uniform 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 5 of 11
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

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act1 which has been entirely ignored by the CWT Parties 

despite being the proper vehicle to attempt collections.

Indeed, the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act creates “procedures for 

enforcing rights conferred by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.” 

Cristall v. Cristall, 225 Ariz. 591, 593, 242 P.3d 1060, 1062 (App. 2010). Significantly, Arizona 

does not have the equivalent of a Restraint Notice. Instead, a Judgment Creditor who wishes to 

seize assets must use the procedural mechanisms available to seize assets in Arizona. In order to 

collect upon assets within Arizona, the judgment creditor must go through the process of 

domesticating the foreign judgment2 in Arizona—a process the CWT Parties are intimately 

familiar with having gone through this process previously and having successfully domesticated 

the New York Judgment in Arizona. [Superior Court of Arizona, in and for the County of 

Maricopa, Case No. CV2017-005401]. A copy of the foreign judgment may be filed with the 

clerk of any superior court in this state, at which time, the clerk shall “treat the foreign judgment 

in the same manner as a judgment of the superior court of this state.” Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-

1702, thereby allowing the judgment creditor to attempt collections pursuant to Arizona law. 

Having ignored this singular way in which they could be authorized to attempt collections in 

Arizona the CWT Parties have instead issued invalid Restraining Notices and Information 

Subpoenas that are unenforceable and invalid. Showing that their issuance was and is in bad faith.

C. None of the Recipients of Restraining Notices or Information Subpoenas Hold any 

Funds or Assets of a Judgment Debtor or Owe any Funds or Assets to a Judgment 

Debtor.

As this Court is undoubtedly aware, and as is inconspicuously obvious, IEC is not a 

Judgment Debtor; indeed, IEC is not even a party to the New York case. Therefore, it is obvious 

that the action taken by the CWT parties in serving their Restraining Notice on Bank of the West

for the purpose of freezing IEC’s account is unlawful and improper. As the affidavit of William 

 

1 Enacted in New York in 1970.

2 A “foreign judgment” means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of 

any other court.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 6 of 11
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

Hinz establishes, no funds were deposited in an IEC account by or on behalf of a Judgment Debtor, 

no funds in the IEC account belong to any Judgment Debtor, nor are any of the funds owed to a 

Judgment Debtor making any restraint of these funds wholly improper and illegal. [Exhibit H, 

Affidavit of William Hinz at ¶¶ 2 – 3]. Similarly, the Restraining Notice and Information 

Subpoena served directly upon IEC is invalid for the same reason. The same is true as to Wyo 

Tech, Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C., and Beus Gilbert PLLC. [Exhibit N, Affidavit of William 

Hinz at ¶¶ 2 – 3; Exhibit J, Affidavit of Dennis I. Wilenchik at ¶¶ 4 – 5; Exhibit L, Affidavit of 

Leo R. Beus at ¶¶ 3 – 4].

The supposed basis for the Restraining Notice to Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. and Beus 

Gilbert PLLC is that they may have received compensation by Wyo Tech or IEC. Given the fact 

that Wyo Tech nor IEC has ever received any funds or assets from a Judgment Debtor, nor do 

they owe any funds or assets to any Judgment Debtor, whether or not Wyo Tech or IEC ever paid 

Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. or Beus Gilbert PLLC, neither entity holds funds of a Judgment 

Debtor. This is nothing more than a tactless ploy at forestalling Wyo Tech and IEC’s counsel 

from continuing to represent them and there is absolutely no basis in law or fact for the issuance 

of a Restraining Notice or Information Subpoena to either Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. or Beus 

Gilbert PLLC.

D. To the Extent that the CWT Parties claim the IEC or Wyo Tech are “Alter Egos” 

or “sham” Companies of Dennis Danzik or RDX the Restraining Notices are 

Invalid and a Clear Violation of Due Process.

The CWT Parties have made the claim that Wyo Tech is an “alter ego company” and have 

made similar claims regarding IEC. [Doc. 62 at 3:13 – 17 (“That Danzik would use an alter-ego 

company to evade creditors is nothing new.”); Doc. 88 4:5 – 6 (“That Danzik would use a sham 

company to hold his assets and keep them out of reach of creditors is nothing new”)]. While 

neither Wyo Tech nor IEC are a “sham” or “alter ego”, this basis is undeniably not a proper claim 

for issuance of a restraining notice. As was stated in Wyo Tech’s Motion (Doc. 72) and as is 

uncontested in the CWT Parties’ Response (Doc. 88):

The other cases cited by the plaintiff are equally inapposite. In both Bingham v. Zolt,

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 7 of 11
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

231 A.D.2d 479, 647 N.Y.S.2d 220 (App.Div.1996), and ERA Mgmt., Inc. v. 

Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, 199 A.D.2d 179, 605 N.Y.S.2d 91 

(App.Div.1993), the court found that restraining notices were properly issued 

against bank accounts held in the name of third parties, but where the plaintiffs had 

shown evidence that the accounts held the assets of the judgment debtor. These 

cases, like the others cited by the plaintiff, support the proposition that a judgment 

creditor may restrain the assets of a judgment debtor wherever those assets may be. 

They do not support the proposition that the assets of third parties may be 

restrained in anticipation of a finding that those third parties are alter egos or 

hold assets of alleged alter egos of the judgment debtor. Such a conclusion is not 

only unsupported by the text of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222 or any of the cases cited by 

the plaintiff, but would also pose significant due process problems.

JSC Foreign Econ. Ass’n Technostroyexport v. Int’l Dev. & Trade Servs., Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 

366, 392–93 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (emphasis added). Under clear New York law, the restraint of third 

party funds on a theory of alter ego through the use of a § 5222 restraining notice—as is the case 

here—is not allowed and constitutes a clear and knowing violation of due process. That is, the 

restraining notices are clearly invalid and this Court must declare as much to preserve the rights 

of Wyo Tech and its Counsel to continue to litigate this matter.

II. MOTION TO AMEND

Defendant / Counterclaimant / Cross-Claimant / Third Party Plaintiff Wyo Tech Investment 

Group, LLC (“Wyo Tech”), hereby files this Motion to Amend its Cross Claims to include claims 

related to an additional recently sent Restraining Notice to it, and to add as an additional Plaintiff, 

Inductance Energy Corporation (“IEC”) whose Bank of the West accounts were recently and 

improperly restrained by the CWT Parties us of an invalid and improper NY CPLR § 5222 as 

described above.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleadings 

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give 

leave hen just so requires.” The decision whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is within the 

sound discretion of the district court, but as has been aptly recognized, “this discretion is strictly 

circumscribed by the proviso that ‘leave [should] be freely given when justice so requires.’” 

Florida Foundation Seed Producers, Inc. v. Georgia Farms Services, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-125, 2012 

WL 4840809, at *21 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2012) (Sands, J.) (citing Nat’l Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Vafla 

Corp., 694 F.2d 246, 249 (11th Cir. 1982). Therefore a justifying reason must be apparent for 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 8 of 11
8

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

denial of a motion to amend. Id. “Unless a substantial reason exists to deny leave to amend, the 

discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.” Id.

In light of the significant factual and procedural developments since this action was 

commenced, good cause for amending is immediately apparent. The CWT Parties will in no way 

be prejudiced if the changes are allowed at this point to include the newly sent Restraining Notice 

and the factually similar Restraining Notices sent to IEC and its banking institution, Bank of the 

West. Consistent with the liberal standard that applies to motions to amend, the Court should 

grant this Motion.

Furthermore, in light of the foregoing, the Court should also reconsider its prior ruling that 

it lacked personal jurisdiction over the lawyer and law firm defendants as these numerous actions 

all aimed directly at companies and individuals located in Arizona clearly constitute sufficient 

contacts with Arizona for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction over them.

CONCLUSION

As is clear, the plethora of abusive, invalid, and improper Restraining Notices and 

Information Subpoenas that are causing untold damages to numerous nondebtor, nonparty, 

individuals and entities must result in this Court declaring that the Restraining Notices and 

Information Subpoeans are invalid and unenforceable and requiring the CWT Parties to obtain 

permission from this Court prior to attempting any future collection efforts on persons or entities 

other than the Judgment Debtors themselves. Moreover, this Court should allow Amendment to 

the Pleadings to add these additional facts and IEC’s factually and procedurally similar claims 

arising out of the same New York Judgment and the same improper and invalid conduct of the 

CWT Parties and their attorneys.

. . .

. . .

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED February 15, 2019.

WILENCHIK & BARTNESS, P.C.

/s/ Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 9 of 11
9

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, 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

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 10 of 11
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

ELECTRONICALLY FILED February 15, 201.

COPY served via CM/ECF System, which sends notification

to all parties registered therein this 15th day of February, 2019.

/s/ Hilary Myers

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 98 Filed 02/15/19 Page 11 of 11