Paltzer v Hejailan-Amon 2025 NY Slip Op 31753(U) May 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 655981/2024 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 655981/2024 EDGAR H. PALTZER MOTION DATE 02/07/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- TRACEY ESPY HEJAILAN-AMON, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
In this breach of contract action, defendant moves pre-answer to dismiss the complaint
arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, that the doctrine of forum non
conveniens applies, and that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiff cross-moves for
sanctions arguing that this motion is frivolous and without any basis in law.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Dr. Edgar H. Paltzer, LL.M is an attorney admitted to the bar of, and practicing
in Zurich, Switzerland (NYSCEF Doc No 2 at ¶ 1). Defendant, Tracey Espy Hejailan-Amon, is a
New York resident who, in September of 2020, retained plaintiff as her Swiss counsel (id. at ¶
5). Plaintiff sent defendant a retainer agreement, which included, plaintiff’s hourly fee,
conditions for termination, confidentiality agreements, a provision declaring that the contract
was to be interpreted under Swiss Law, and a consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of any dispute
in Zurich, Switzerland (id. at ¶ 6). The retainer was never signed by defendant, however
notwithstanding the unsigned agreement plaintiff rendered legal services to defendant and
defendant made payments in connection with those services (id. at ¶¶ 7 – 9). Plaintiff billed 655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
defendant monthly and while some invoices were paid in full, plaintiff alleges that, due to
defendant’s cash flow problems, some were only paid partially or not at all (id. at ¶ 19).
On April 5, 2024, plaintiff terminated the attorney-client relationship with defendant due
to the outstanding invoices, totaling CHF 180,419.931 (id. at ¶¶ 24 – 25). Prior, to bringing this
action, plaintiff sued defendant in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). However,
during a telephone conference the federal court noted that because plaintiff is a dual citizen of
Switzerland and the United States, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
Plaintiff then withdrew the federal action and started this action, asserting five causes of action
for: (1) Work, Labor, and Services Provided; (2) Account Stated; (3) Breach of Contract; (4)
Unjust Enrichment; and (5) Breach of Contract.
DISCUSSION
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
As a preliminary matter, defendant while accusing plaintiff of “forum shopping” appears
to argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Defendant avers that prior
to plaintiff’s withdrawal of the action in federal court, the SDNY noted that when a plaintiff is a
dual citizen of both the United States, and a foreign nation, and is currently domiciled abroad, he
is considered neither a citizen of any one US state, nor a citizen or subject of a foreign state
pursuant the 28 USC § 1332, the statute which provides federal courts with diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant argues that the federal action, confirmed that there is no jurisdictional foundation in
New York. However, the federal court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction has no bearing on this
court’s jurisdiction.
1 CHF stands for “Confoederatio Helvetica Franc” translated to Swiss franc, the currency and legal tender of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Plaintiff seeks judgment of an award in CHF or one converted to US Dollars pursuant to NY Judiciary Law § 27(b) 655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
Subject matter jurisdiction refers simply to whether the court has the fundamental power
to adjudicate the matter before it (Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc., 21 NY3d
200 [2013]). Diversity jurisdiction has no bearing here as that barrier solely applies to federal
courts, whose jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies arising from federal law, or cases
where the parties have a complete diversity of citizenship (E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v Acc. &
Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F3d 925 [2d Cir 1998]). In state courts however, the primary question
regarding the courts’ jurisdiction is whether the action is “justiciable” that is whether there is “a
real dispute between adverse parties” which undisputedly exists here (Kennedy v Suffolk County,
211 AD3d 926, 927 [2d Dept 2022]).
Forum Selection Clause / Forum Non Conveniens
Defendant argues that because the retainer agreement between the parties indicates that
the claims are subject to the jurisdiction of Zurich, Switzerland that the action must be dismissed.
Furthermore, she argues that since the matter is fundamentally disconnected from New York,
and likely would require an analysis of Swiss law, that the action should be dismissed pursuant
to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Plaintiff argues that because defendant failed to sign the retainer agreement, the Swiss
courts would decline to hear the case, as Swiss courts only exercise jurisdiction over a defendant
in the area they reside, or if there is a valid agreement on jurisdiction. Plaintiff notes that he has
proposed to defendant that if defendant would agree to waive jurisdictional objections to the
Swiss courts, then he would be willing to proceed with the case in Zurich.
“In determining whether to dismiss an action on the ground of forum non conveniens,
[a]mong the factors to be considered are the burden on the New York courts, the potential
hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may
655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
bring suit” (Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v Ace Am. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 482, 482 [1st
Dept 2008]). Here, defendant is a New York resident so the potential hardship on her to defend
the action here is minimal. Defendant argues that because this court would be required to apply
Swiss law if it went forward, a high burden would be placed on the New York courts (see Tilleke
& Gibbins Intern., Ltd. v Baker & McKenzie, 302 AD2d 328 [1st Dept 2003] [application of Thai
law in New York courts would result in an inordinate burden on court]). However, “New York
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Paltzer v Hejailan-Amon 2025 NY Slip Op 31753(U) May 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 655981/2024 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 655981/2024 EDGAR H. PALTZER MOTION DATE 02/07/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- TRACEY ESPY HEJAILAN-AMON, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
In this breach of contract action, defendant moves pre-answer to dismiss the complaint
arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, that the doctrine of forum non
conveniens applies, and that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiff cross-moves for
sanctions arguing that this motion is frivolous and without any basis in law.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Dr. Edgar H. Paltzer, LL.M is an attorney admitted to the bar of, and practicing
in Zurich, Switzerland (NYSCEF Doc No 2 at ¶ 1). Defendant, Tracey Espy Hejailan-Amon, is a
New York resident who, in September of 2020, retained plaintiff as her Swiss counsel (id. at ¶
5). Plaintiff sent defendant a retainer agreement, which included, plaintiff’s hourly fee,
conditions for termination, confidentiality agreements, a provision declaring that the contract
was to be interpreted under Swiss Law, and a consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of any dispute
in Zurich, Switzerland (id. at ¶ 6). The retainer was never signed by defendant, however
notwithstanding the unsigned agreement plaintiff rendered legal services to defendant and
defendant made payments in connection with those services (id. at ¶¶ 7 – 9). Plaintiff billed 655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
defendant monthly and while some invoices were paid in full, plaintiff alleges that, due to
defendant’s cash flow problems, some were only paid partially or not at all (id. at ¶ 19).
On April 5, 2024, plaintiff terminated the attorney-client relationship with defendant due
to the outstanding invoices, totaling CHF 180,419.931 (id. at ¶¶ 24 – 25). Prior, to bringing this
action, plaintiff sued defendant in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). However,
during a telephone conference the federal court noted that because plaintiff is a dual citizen of
Switzerland and the United States, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity.
Plaintiff then withdrew the federal action and started this action, asserting five causes of action
for: (1) Work, Labor, and Services Provided; (2) Account Stated; (3) Breach of Contract; (4)
Unjust Enrichment; and (5) Breach of Contract.
DISCUSSION
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
As a preliminary matter, defendant while accusing plaintiff of “forum shopping” appears
to argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Defendant avers that prior
to plaintiff’s withdrawal of the action in federal court, the SDNY noted that when a plaintiff is a
dual citizen of both the United States, and a foreign nation, and is currently domiciled abroad, he
is considered neither a citizen of any one US state, nor a citizen or subject of a foreign state
pursuant the 28 USC § 1332, the statute which provides federal courts with diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant argues that the federal action, confirmed that there is no jurisdictional foundation in
New York. However, the federal court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction has no bearing on this
court’s jurisdiction.
1 CHF stands for “Confoederatio Helvetica Franc” translated to Swiss franc, the currency and legal tender of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Plaintiff seeks judgment of an award in CHF or one converted to US Dollars pursuant to NY Judiciary Law § 27(b) 655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
Subject matter jurisdiction refers simply to whether the court has the fundamental power
to adjudicate the matter before it (Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc., 21 NY3d
200 [2013]). Diversity jurisdiction has no bearing here as that barrier solely applies to federal
courts, whose jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies arising from federal law, or cases
where the parties have a complete diversity of citizenship (E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v Acc. &
Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F3d 925 [2d Cir 1998]). In state courts however, the primary question
regarding the courts’ jurisdiction is whether the action is “justiciable” that is whether there is “a
real dispute between adverse parties” which undisputedly exists here (Kennedy v Suffolk County,
211 AD3d 926, 927 [2d Dept 2022]).
Forum Selection Clause / Forum Non Conveniens
Defendant argues that because the retainer agreement between the parties indicates that
the claims are subject to the jurisdiction of Zurich, Switzerland that the action must be dismissed.
Furthermore, she argues that since the matter is fundamentally disconnected from New York,
and likely would require an analysis of Swiss law, that the action should be dismissed pursuant
to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Plaintiff argues that because defendant failed to sign the retainer agreement, the Swiss
courts would decline to hear the case, as Swiss courts only exercise jurisdiction over a defendant
in the area they reside, or if there is a valid agreement on jurisdiction. Plaintiff notes that he has
proposed to defendant that if defendant would agree to waive jurisdictional objections to the
Swiss courts, then he would be willing to proceed with the case in Zurich.
“In determining whether to dismiss an action on the ground of forum non conveniens,
[a]mong the factors to be considered are the burden on the New York courts, the potential
hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may
655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
bring suit” (Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v Ace Am. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 482, 482 [1st
Dept 2008]). Here, defendant is a New York resident so the potential hardship on her to defend
the action here is minimal. Defendant argues that because this court would be required to apply
Swiss law if it went forward, a high burden would be placed on the New York courts (see Tilleke
& Gibbins Intern., Ltd. v Baker & McKenzie, 302 AD2d 328 [1st Dept 2003] [application of Thai
law in New York courts would result in an inordinate burden on court]). However, “New York
courts are frequently called on to apply the laws of foreign jurisdictions and in this case, there is
no indication that the relevant law, which is from only one foreign jurisdiction, is in dispute or is
distinctly abstruse” (Wormwood Capital LLC v Mulleady, 203 AD3d 500 [1st Dept 2022]
[application of Swiss law held to not be overly burdensome]).
As for the availability of an alternative forum, plaintiff submits an expert witness
affidavit from Stephen Groth, a Swiss attorney who avers that absent an agreement from
defendant, the Swiss courts would decline to adjudicate this matter. Growth states that according
to the Swiss Private International Law Act (“PILA”), generally, a plaintiff can sue a defendant in
the courts where the defendant has their home (NYSCEF Doc No 14 at ¶ 14). However, pursuant
to article 5 ¶ 1 of PILA, parties may consent to an alternative jurisdiction, provided that there is a
written agreement which establishes (1) the content of the jurisdiction agreement and (2) the
consensus between the parties (id. at ¶ 17; see also NYSCEF Doc No 16). Groth notes that the
Swiss Federal Supreme Court has held that an agreement on jurisdiction is only valid if each
party expresses their agreement in written form (NYSCEF Doc No 14 at ¶ 20; see also NYSCEF
Doc No 18, Excerpt from the judgment of the First Civil Chamber of September 9, 1993 in the
matter of Galerie X. v. T. Inc. [“the plaintiff is wrong in her objection that according to Art. 5
PILA, mutual written form is not required”]).
655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 001
4 of 6 [* 4] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
Indeed, following dismissal of Galerie X. v. T. Inc by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, a
related action was filed in the SDNY. The court declined to dismiss the case in forum non
conveniens grounds noting that since the alleged agreement was unsigned, the plaintiff would not
have a suitable forum to adjudicate the claims in Switzerland (David Tunick, Inc. v Kornfeld, 813
F Supp 988 [SDNY 1993]). Therefore, while it appears that both parties agree that the proper
forum for this matter would be in Switzerland, absent an agreement from defendant to submit to
the jurisdiction of Zurich, the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds must be
denied (see Koop v Guskind, 116 AD3d 672, 674 [2d Dept 2014] [“[I]n order to assure the
availability of a forum for the action, the Supreme Court's dismissal should have been
conditioned on the defendant's stipulation to the waiver of jurisdictional and statute of limitations
defenses as indicated herein”]).2
Failure to State a Cause of Action
Defendant also argues that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action because although
plaintiff argues that Swiss law should be applied, however he does not cite to specific Swiss
codes or statutes in the complaint.
“In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), . . . the criterion is whether the
proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [they have] stated one” (Eccles v
Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 42 NY3d 321, 342-43 [2024]). Contrary to defendant’s
assertions, plaintiff does cite specific Articles in Swiss law (Articles 402 and 394; see NYSCEF
Doc No 2 at ¶ 21 – 22) that provide that he may recover unpaid fees incurred pursuant to a
Retainer, when defendant tacitly accepts those services performed. “[A]ccepting the facts as
2 Defendant’s arguments that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action are unavailing. Plaintiff cites specific articles of Swiss code under which his causes of action arise (NYSCEF Doc No 2 ¶¶ 21 – 22). Furthermore, plaintiff adequately pleads New York causes of action, if it is determined that New York law should apply to the action. 655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 001
5 of 6 [* 5] INDEX NO. 655981/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
alleged in the complaint as true, [and] accord[ing] the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable
inference” as required on review of a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, plaintiff has adequately stated
cause of action to recover his allegedly unpaid fees (Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial
Banking Corp., 226 AD3d 60, 85-86 [1st Dept 2024]).
Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion
As for plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions, while defendant’s motion was denied she
did not engage in “frivolous conduct” because the arguments made were not “completely without
merit in law” and thus sanctions are unwarranted (Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections, 126
AD3d 779, 780 [2d Dept 2015]).
Accordingly it is,
ORDERED that defendants’ motion is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s cross-motion is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant is directed to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days
of this order; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties are directed to attend a preliminary discovery conference on
June 12, 2025 at 9:30 AM
5/13/2025 DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
655981/2024 PALTZER LL.M, EDGAR H. vs. HEJAILAN-AMON, TRACEY ESPY Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 001
6 of 6 [* 6]