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

J. Henk Taylor (016321)

RYAN RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 280-1000

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495

Email: htaylor@rrulaw.com 

Jeffrey M. Eilender (admitted pro hac vice)

Bradley J. Nash (admitted pro hac vice)

Joshua Wurtzel (admitted pro hac vice)

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP

26 Broadway

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 344-5400

Facsimile: (212) 344-7677

E-Mail: jeilender@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: bnash@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: jwurtzel@schlamstone.com 

Attorneys for Defendants CWT Canada II Limited

Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, and

Jean Noelting

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 JOSHUA 

WURTZEL IN SUPPORT OF THE 

CWT PARTIES’ AMENDED 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

And related claims.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 135-2 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 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

27

28

-2-

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, JOSHUA WURTZEL, declares, under the 

penalty of perjury, the following to be true and correct.

1. I am an associate of Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, co-counsel with Ryan 

Rapp & Underwood, P.L.C. for Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership,

Resource Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting (collectively, the “CWT Parties”) in 

this action. I submit this declaration in support of the CWT Parties’ Amended Motion for 

Contempt Against Nonparties Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. (“Wilenchik”) and Beus 

Gilbert PLLC (“Beus Gilbert”). Unless otherwise specified, the matters below are based 

on my personal knowledge, communications with other attorneys in my firm, and a 

review of my firm’s files.

2. On February 11, 2019, the CWT Parties served Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert 

with identical subpoenas seeking documents sufficient to show all payments—including 

date, amount, and source account—made to Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert by Wyo Tech 

and Inductance Energy Corporation (another Danzik-related entity formed using Wyo 

Tech money), as well as documents sufficient to show the clients on whose behalf and 

matters for which these payments were made. A copy of the subpoena to Wilenchik is 

located at Docket Number 101 in this action. A copy of the subpoena to Beus Gilbert is 

attached as Exhibit A. Copies of affidavits of service of each of these subpoenas are 

attached as Exhibits B and C.

3. A copy of the transcript of the April 8, 2019 oral argument before this Court 

is attached as Exhibit D.

4. On April 9, 2019, this Court overruled Wilenchik’s and Beus Gilbert’s 

objections to the subpoenas served on them, and ordered Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert to 

“produce the documents requested by the subpoenas by April 26, 2019.” Dkt. No. 119 at 

19.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 135-2 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 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

27

28

-3-

5. But despite this order, neither Wilenchik nor Beus Gilbert produced these 

documents by April 26. Nor did they ask for additional time to do so. Thus, on May 13, 

2019, the CWT Parties moved for entry of an order to show cause why Wilenchik and 

Beus Gilbert should not be held in contempt. Dkt. No. 131.

6. Later on May 13, Wilenchik wrote to the Court asking for an opportunity to 

respond to this motion for an order to show cause because it “believe[d] it was wrongfully 

filed.” A copy of this e-mail is attached as Exhibit E.

7. Wilenchik then wrote to us stating that it sent us written responses to these 

subpoenas from it and Beus Gilbert on April 26, and attached those responses and 

threatened sanctions against us if we did not withdraw our sanctions motion. A copy of 

this e-mail chain is attached as Exhibit F, and a copy of Beus Gilbert’s and Wilenchik’s 

written responses to the subpoenas are attached as Exhibits G and H.

8. But we never received these written responses before May 13—either by 

mail or e-mail (despite the affidavit of service attached to the responses stating that these 

responses were mailed and e-mailed)—and Wilenchik later admitted that it could not 

locate an e-mail transmittal of these responses to us. See Ex. F.

9. After reviewing the responses, we told Wilenchik that we would take it at its

word that it believed it served these responses on April 26 (though it hadn’t). Id. But we 

also explained that these responses still did not satisfy the Court’s April 9 order. Id.

10. Specifically, the Court’s April 9 order required Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert 

to “produce the documents requested by the subpoenas by April 26, 2019,” (Dkt. No. 

119), and the subpoenas stated that the “relevant time period to which each request refers 

is January 1, 2016 through the date of production” (Dkt. No. 101 at 2; Ex. A at 2). But 

in their responses, Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert purported to limit each request to “January 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 135-2 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 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

27

28

-4-

1, 2016 through October 18, 2017,” and then said that they have “no documents in [their] 

possession responsive to [each] request” for this time period. Id. Exs. G, H.

11. We explained to Wilenchik that its and Beus Gilbert’s attempt to 

unilaterally limit the scope of the subpoenas was improper, since in its April 9 order, the 

Court rejected Wyo Tech’s argument that only information the CWT Parties knew before

they served the restraining notice on October 18, 2017 is relevant, and that one of the 

CWT Parties’ theories in this case is that Danzik started using Inductance (which was 

formed using Wyo Tech funds) to pay his personal expenses after the CWT Parties served 

the restraining notice on Wyo Tech—which shows that Danzik has an interest in Wyo 

Tech’s funds, since Inductance was merely a continuation of Wyo Tech set up or used to 

avoid the restraining notice. Ex. F; see also Dkt. No. 119 at 13 (The Court: “[B]ecause 

some of Wyo Tech’s funds were transferred to Inductance for the ‘opening’ of an 

Inductance account immediately before the restraining notice was issued on the Wyo Tech 

account, whether Inductance paid Danzik’s legal bills also bears on whether Danzik has 

an interest in the interpleaded funds.”).

12. We then asked Wilenchik to confirm that neither it nor Beus Gilbert “has 

any documents responsive to any of the requests in the subpoenas in its possession, 

custody, or control for the full time period requested in the subpoenas—January 1, 2016 

through the date of production (April 26, 2019).” Ex. F.

13. In response, on May 14, 2019, Wilenchik wrote back: “I can confirm that 

Beus Gilbert has not received any payments from either Wyo Tech or Inductance at any 

time. It is also my understanding that W&B did not receive any payments from either 

Inductance or WYO Tech prior to October 2017, as stated in the Response to SDT. W&B 

has obviously received payments from Wyo Tech to pay for our representation of it in this 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 135-2 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 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

27

28

-5-

lawsuit and W&B may have also received some payments from Wyo Tech or Inductance 

related to other matters since October 2017.” Id.

14. We then demanded that Wilenchik immediately produced documents related 

to these payments, and later on May 14, Wilenchik produced 11 pages of documents 

showing payments it got from Wyo Tech and Inductance. Copies of these documents are 

attached as Exhibit I. But this late production still does not comply with this Court’s April 

9 order.

15. Later on May 14, after reviewing this production, we responded to 

Wilenchik, explaining that it was insufficient and complete because it was missing 

documents we know Wilenchik has. Ex. F. 

16. So on May 15, 2019—after claiming it had already produced documents 

showing “all payments” from Wyo Tech or Inductance to Wilenchik—Wilenchik made a 

supplemental production of another three pages, and then filed an opposition to the CWT

Parties’ initial motion for an order to show cause (Dkt. No. 134). Copies of these three 

pages of documents are attached as Exhibit J.

17. A copy of a check we got in post-judgment discovery from Inductance to 

Beus Gilbert, dated March 15, 2018, for $20,000 is attached as Exhibit K. Beus Gilbert 

did not produce this check, or any documents showing this payment.

18. A copy of a check we got in post-judgment discovery from Wyo Tech to 

Wilenchik, dated May 22, 2017, for $10,000 is attached as Exhibit L. Wilenchik did not 

produce this check, or any documents showing this payment, in response to the subpoena 

we served on it in this action.

19. Copies of checks we got in post-judgment discovery from Inductance to

Wilenchik, dated April 9, 2018 and August 21, 2018, respectively, each for $100,000 are 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 135-2 Filed 05/15/19 Page 5 of 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

27

28

-6-

attached as Exhibit M. Wilenchik did not produce these checks, or any documents 

showing these payments, in response to the subpoena we served on it in this action. 

Dated: May 15, 2019 

New York, New York

 JOSHUA WURTZEL

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 135-2 Filed 05/15/19 Page 6 of 6