Astone v. Global Mortgage Group CA1/1

Filed 11/21/23 Astone v. Global Mortgage Group CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ANTHONY ASTONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A166858 v. GLOBAL MORTGAGE GROUP, (Contra Costa County LLC, Super. Ct. No. C22-01745) Defendant and Respondent.

Anthony Astone appeals from a trial court order under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 (section 410.30) staying his lawsuit against Global Mortgage Group, LLC, d/b/a MoXi (MoXi), based on a forum-selection clause in a loan agreement requiring claims that “result from” the agreement or a related trust agreement to be litigated in Mexico. We agree with Astone that the clause does not apply to his claims against MoXi because they did not result from the loan or trust agreements.1 We therefore reverse the stay order and remand for further proceedings.

1 As a result of this conclusion, we need not address Astone’s numerous

other arguments for reversal, including that MoXi lacks standing to enforce the forum-selection clause and that the loan agreement was subsequently rescinded.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from a real estate transaction gone wrong, and it highlights the perils of Internet fraud. Around January 2022, Astone, a California resident, entered a purchase and sale agreement (purchase agreement) with an individual seller to buy real property in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.2 The purchase price was $345,900, including “an initial earnest money deposit of $35,340.” Astone’s real estate agents had referred Astone to MoXi, a Delaware limited liability company, “to [use] as the lender” for the transaction. The purchase agreement provided that it was “contingent upon [Astone’s] obtaining financing . . . through MoXi,” and it also stated that MoXi would “ ‘handle the closing’ ” of the transaction. The purchase agreement itself is not in our record. Soon after entering the purchase agreement, Astone wired the earnest money deposit to the seller and applied for a loan through MoXi. He was approved for a loan of $172,400, to be repaid over 25 years at an interest rate of 8.19 percent. The lender was a Mexican company that Astone alleges is “an affiliate” of MoXi. MoXi was to set up a trust in which the property would be held until the loan was paid, with the lender as the primary beneficiary and Astone as the secondary beneficiary. As the date for Astone to appear in Mexico to sign the closing documents approached, he still had not received either an estimated closing statement, identifying the amount he needed to deposit into escrow, or wire instructions for the deposit. On April 11, 2022, he sent an email requesting