Expansion Capital Group Lawsuit: DFPI Consent Order, Mentat and Aris Plumbing

Expansion Capital Group lawsuit records: the 2022 DFPI consent order plus NY cases like Mentat and Aris, and what they do not prove about your file.

Updated 2026-10-30

Home · News · Expansion Capital Group lawsuit

By Anonymous MCA industry contributor Research, writing and editorial review · MCA sales background

Searches for Expansion Capital Group lawsuit usually surface a mix of (1) California DFPI licensing / consent-order materials for Expansion Capital Group, LLC, and (2) private New York commercial disputes over receivables-purchase enforcement, not a Federal Trade Commission or New York Attorney General industry-wide refund program like the public Yellowstone Capital lawsuit track. This page summarizes what identifiable public records establish, and what a single order does not prove about your file.

Editorial update: 2026-10-30 · Desk research of published court opinions, the DFPI consent order PDF, and public docket indexes only. Not legal advice, not affiliated with Expansion Capital Group, LLC.

This page covers the court and regulatory record only. For who Expansion Capital Group is, what it sells, how it collects and what merchants report, read our Expansion Capital Group company profile.

Quick answer

Question	What the public record supports on this page
Who is the litigating / regulated entity?	Filings and the DFPI order name Expansion Capital Group, LLC (Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Delaware LLC; California CFL licensee 60DBO-44063)
Is there an FTC / NY AG “Expansion refund” program?	No equivalent public FTC redress or NY AG debt-cancellation program for Expansion is described in the sources checked for this page
Regulatory record highlighted here	California DFPI Consent Order dated April 4, 2022: $167,500 penalty; desist-and-refrain terms; MCA agreement / NSF-default and broker-licensing undertakings (Expansion did not admit or deny the Commissioner’s findings)
NY case examples on this page	Expansion Capital Group, LLC v. Mentat, LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 32030(U)), CPLR 3213 domestication of a South Dakota default judgment held in abeyance for a personal-jurisdiction referee; Expansion Capital Group LLC v. Aris Plumbing & Heating Inc. (2026 NY Slip Op 51390(U)), Rockland County signed an OSC for preliminary-injunction briefing but declined a TRO suspending a UCC enforcement notice to Intuit
Does the DFPI order cancel your Expansion balance?	No. The consent order is a historical California regulatory settlement with Expansion. It does not automatically void other merchants’ agreements or set a settlement percentage

If you were served, start with: Merchant cash advance lawsuit and Served with an MCA lawsuit: first 30 days.

Why Expansion results look different from Yellowstone

Yellowstone Capital appears in agency enforcement materials with consumer/merchant redress narratives (FTC; later NY AG debt cancellation for covered entities). Expansion’s public footprint more often looks like:

A state licensing consent order (California DFPI / CFL) that resolved an investigation without a trial admission of liability
Funder-as-plaintiff collection, domestication, or UCC-enforcement disputes against merchants and guarantors
Occasional merchant-side emergency applications to pause ACH / processor holds, orders that may be interim only

Treat headlines and docket snippets as case-specific. An order in one merchant’s file does not set your settlement percentage, defense, or deadline.

Regulatory spotlight: California DFPI consent order (April 4, 2022)

On April 4, 2022, the California Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation entered a Consent Order against Expansion Capital Group, LLC (CFL File 60DBO-44063). The order is a public PDF on the DFPI site.

According to that order (Expansion entered it without admitting or denying the Commissioner’s findings):

Expansion has been licensed as a California Financing Law lender since April 24, 2015, with a principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
The Department investigated Expansion’s marketing practices and “purported non-loan financing products” beginning in 2019
Findings recited that Expansion offers loans and merchant cash advances under Future Receivable Sales Agreements described as purchases “without recourse,” with daily/weekly remittances approximating a purchased percentage of future receivables
The MCA form treated five or more NSF / insufficient-funds events in the designated remittance account as a default; Expansion told the Commissioner it had declared only two California MCAs in default on that five-NSF theory and did not exercise default remedies on those two
Expansion had paid some loan brokers / ISOs that were not CFL-licensed, and had failed to timely amend its CFL application after 2017 officer/director changes
Desist-and-refrain terms under Financial Code § 22712 addressed paying unlicensed solicitors and timely CFL-application amendments
Expansion agreed to pay a $167,500 penalty; to remove multiple-NSF default triggers from MCA (and similar) agreements; to implement MCA controls/policies so activities do not constitute non-compliant loans (including reconciliation outreach); and to continue employee training
The order states it does not create private rights or remedies for third parties

What this consent order does not establish

It does not create an FTC-style public refund portal for every Expansion merchant
It does not adjudicate whether your particular agreement is a loan or a sale
It does not pause deadlines in a New York (or other) lawsuit against another merchant
It does not set a “typical” Expansion settlement rate

Case spotlight: Mentat: domestication held for jurisdiction hearing (2019)

On July 2, 2019, New York County Supreme Court (Crane, J.) decided Expansion Capital Group, LLC v. Mentat, LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 32030(U)), Index No. 652782/2018.

According to the published decision:

Expansion moved under CPLR 3213 to domesticate an unsatisfied South Dakota default judgment entered November 14, 2017, for $37,193.40 plus costs, attorneys’ fees, and post-judgment interest, after an alleged default on a January 20, 2017 receivables purchase ($30,000 funded against $45,300 purchased receivables; $377 daily remittance)
Mentat’s owner contested notice/service in South Dakota and New York and argued the agreement was an unenforceable loan
The court held New York personal jurisdiction for the domestication action was established via Secretary of State service, but found questions of fact whether South Dakota obtained personal jurisdiction (service proof under South Dakota law was missing from Expansion’s papers)
Collateral attack on the merits of the South Dakota judgment (including illegality / usury theories) was not permitted on that domestication motion; the jurisdictional challenge was
Expansion’s CPLR 3213 motion was held in abeyance and referred to a special referee / JHO on whether South Dakota had personal jurisdiction over Mentat

What Mentat does not establish

It is not a final holding that Expansion’s agreement was usurious or void
It is not a ruling that every out-of-state Expansion judgment is unenforceable in New York
It does not cancel balances in unrelated Expansion files

Case spotlight: Aris Plumbing: TRO denied; PI briefing ordered (2026)

On August 27, 2026, Rockland County Supreme Court (Collins, J.) decided Expansion Capital Group LLC v. Aris Plumbing & Heating Inc. d/b/a ARIS PLUMBING & HEATING and Aron Landau (2026 NY Slip Op 51390(U)).

According to the published decision (facts as recited by the court from the parties’ papers):

On March 13, 2026, Expansion and Aris entered a Future Receivables Sales Agreement: Expansion purchased $92,757 of future receivables at a 9% purchased percentage; Expansion later alleged default on or about May 6, 2026
On June 25, 2026, Expansion’s counsel sent a UCC § 9-406 Enforcement Notice to Intuit, stating $103,265 was “due and owing” and directing remittance of funds owed to / collected for Aris; Intuit later held roughly $60,000
Expansion sued on July 16, 2026, seeking about $81,732 plus fees; remittance registers in the record showed other “remaining obligation” figures
Defendants sought a TRO / preliminary injunction to suspend the Enforcement Notice and compel Expansion to tell Intuit funds could be released
The court signed the order to show cause and set expedited preliminary-injunction briefing, but declined temporary restraining relief, noting unexplained inconsistencies among Expansion’s own figures and a counterclaim about the scope of the Enforcement Notice

What Aris does not establish

Declining a TRO is not a final merits win for either side
It does not hold that every Expansion UCC notice is unlawful, or that every one is valid
It does not freeze collection in other Expansion matters

What to do if Expansion Capital Group is in your caption

Calendar every deadline on the summons, OSC, or domestication motion
Match entities: Expansion Capital Group, LLC vs. any servicer, ISO, or processor named in ACH / UCC paperwork
Preserve the receivables agreement, guarantees, NSF / remittance history, reconciliation requests, UCC notices to processors (for example Intuit), and any South Dakota or other sister-state judgments
Read MCA lawsuit first 30 days and what is MCA settlement before assuming any industry-average discount
Get jurisdiction-specific advice on your papers; this page is desk research, not representation

FAQ

Is there an Expansion Capital Group FTC refund or NY AG debt-cancellation program?

Not in the public sources checked for this page. Do not confuse Expansion’s DFPI consent order or private lawsuits with the Yellowstone Capital FTC / NY AG track.

Does the 2022 DFPI consent order mean my Expansion MCA is void?

No. The order resolved a California licensing investigation on agreed terms (penalty, desist-and-refrain, MCA form/control undertakings). Expansion did not admit or deny the findings, and the order expressly states it does not create private third-party remedies.

Why do Expansion lawsuits mention South Dakota?

Expansion’s public materials place its principal office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Some collection paths involve South Dakota judgments later brought to New York under domestication / CPLR 3213 practice (Mentat). Jurisdiction and service facts are case-specific.

Can a settlement company or attorney help while a suit or UCC hold is pending?

Sometimes parties still negotiate after filing, but court and processor deadlines continue unless formally changed. Compare written scopes and fees. See attorneys vs settlement companies and our MCA settlement overview.

Where else should I read on this site?

Start with the merchant cash advance lawsuit hub, and MCA debt relief options. For company comparisons, see reviews.

Related funder lawsuit pages

The MCA lawsuit tracker is the quickest way to compare Expansion Capital Group's cases with the rest of the funders on this site.

Sources checked October 27, 2026

Desk research only. We did not contact Expansion Capital Group for this update, and we did not review any merchant’s private claim file. This is not a complete litigation search or a prediction about your case.

Takeaway

Treat “Expansion Capital Group lawsuit” as a search that may mix a 2022 California DFPI consent order with private receivables / domestication / UCC-enforcement litigation, not an automatic industry refund. Read the caption, the deadline, and the actual order. Mentat and Aris show why jurisdiction, service, and figure consistency matter; they do not cancel other Expansion balances or set a win rate.

Talk to our featured first provider

Request a free consultation from Coastal Debt Resolve. Confirm fees, service scope, and any legal representation in writing.

Get a free review

Also comparing providers? Read our Business Debt Insider review, and confirm any engagement terms directly with BDI.