Summary Judgment in MCA Cases: 6 Questions About the Evidence Required

A summary judgment motion asks the court to decide without a trial. That request should be answered on the papers the movant filed, not on the reputation funders enjoy for quick victories, since the only record that matters is the one attached to the notice of motion.

Six questions organize the opposition. They begin with what the moving party had to show and end with what the order leaves behind.

1. What the Moving Party Had to Show

In Pirs Capital, LLC v. MCA Westover Hills Operating Co., LLC, a New York trial court denied the funder 2023 summary judgment motion. The court required an initial showing of entitlement as a matter of law, supported by evidence leaving no material factual issue, and found the submission wanting on more than one front.

The motion failed. The case continued.

The denial, if we are being precise, decided the motion rather than the dispute. It did not dismiss the action, cancel the advance or brand every agreement from the same funder unenforceable, and counsel should read the order for what it granted before describing it as a victory.

A moving affidavit that narrates conclusions instead of exhibiting documents is a memorandum with a notary stamp. There is a peculiar optimism in moving papers that cite no law for the law they chose, and the opposition should identify that gap with the exhibits beside it.

2. Which Law the Papers Invoked

The Pirs agreement selected Florida law, but the movant supplied no Florida authority for the relief requested. The court treated that absence as one reason the initial showing fell short, which makes the governing law provision the first page counsel should find.

Little in the file matters more than that provision. Retain the agreement with amendments, and assess the framework that controls the particular contract rather than the forum where the papers were filed.

A New York caption does not make New York substantive law govern every issue. Whether an unopposed motion receives lighter scrutiny in a given forum is a question for counsel there, not for this article.

Do not assume the same omission marks another funder motion. The actual papers may address the governing law, invoke a different agreement or cure the defect this decision exposed.

3. Whether Jurisdiction Survived the Answer

The same court found the movant had not negated the personal jurisdiction defense. Proper service established delivery, not authority, and the agreement lacked the New York consent language the opinion discussed in a different Pirs matter, which is why the exact contract matters more than the caption on the file.

And service, though valid, proved only service.

Counsel should examine the answer and the motion history to learn which defenses remain live in the actual case. I reviewed one such opposition on a Friday afternoon in summer, when the office had already emptied, which may account for my sympathy toward objections that arrive before merits.

The company and the guarantor may stand on different jurisdictional ground. Assemble and index the service records with the documents of acceptance, and follow the issue the movant raised instead of the objection the owner prefers.

4. What the Payment Record Proves

The ledger should trace funding, remittances, credits and the disputed balance to entries a reader can verify. The ledger question is the one that decides most oppositions, though the entries alone say little without a witness to introduce them.

Reconciliation records belong in the file where the character of the advance is at issue. The appellate analysis in LG Funding, LLC v. United Senior Properties of Olathe, LLC weighed reconciliation, term and bankruptcy recourse in asking whether repayment was absolute, and that framework needs the requests, the submissions and the responses behind it.

A bank statement offered to prove a balance is like a menu offered to prove a meal. It lists what passed through, not what was consumed. Counsel should ensure each disputed entry points to its document, and a notation marked *paid in full* on an internal spreadsheet proves only the notation.

The statement shows the debit. It does not show *why*.

A missing month should be labeled as missing rather than interpolated. Counsel can explain an absence, but counsel cannot defend a reconstruction presented as a record, and the distinction matters more on these motions than anywhere else in the case.

Identify and brief the omission or disagreement the record supports rather than the grievance the owner feels. Missing documents should be named without inventing their contents, and prior modifications or releases should be read for their effect on the balance through whatever theory they support.

5. What Settlement Can and Cannot Do Here

A settlement discussion does not change the response date. Delancey Street can review the MCA obligation through its merchant cash advance settlement service, which offers a free confidential initial review, beginning with the motion schedule and the amount now claimed.

The company is a settlement company, not a law firm. Independent counsel handles the opposition papers and the legal representation, and independent counsel ensures the opposition and the negotiation tell the same story.

Admissions the owner makes, or permits, during negotiation can reach the motion papers. Resist the urge to supplement the record with an explanatory letter the court did not request, and let any proposal state whether the individual undertaking is included, since a company level resolution may not reach it. Any statement about the debt, even casually, can narrow what counsel preserved.

6. What the Order Leaves Behind

Counsel should obtain the order, calendar the next dates, and prepare a record that shows both what the court decided and what remains for trial. A denial keeps the case alive without erasing the debt, while a grant requires review of the relief awarded and the steps that follow it.

The order describes the showing the movant made and the issue that survived it. Keep the ledger current, since later collections or payments can alter the account.

Nobody keeps records for the motion. Everyone wishes they had.

Simply keep the exhibits with the order. Every business dispute becomes a dispute about paper, and the company that kept its paper arrives with the materials the court requested.