Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC | Aaron Radbil
Attorneys
Aaron  D. Radbil

PRACTICES

Consumer Finance

EDUCATION

University of Miami School of Law
J.D., 2006
 
University of Arizona
B.A., 2002, cum laude

ADMISSIONS

  • Texas
  • Florida
  • Illinois

United States District Courts
 
  • Northern District of Illinois
  • Middle District of Florida
  • Southern District of Florida
  • Western District of Tennessee
  • District of Colorado
  • Western District of New York
  • Eastern District of Texas
  • Southern District of Texas
  • Western District of Texas
  • District of Nebraska
  • Southern District of Indiana
  • Central District of Illinois

United States Circuit Courts of Appeals
 
  • Fourth Circut
  • Fifth Circuit
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Ninth Circuit
  • Tenth Circuit
  • Eleventh Circuit
Aaron D. Radbil
Texas
CONTACT INFORMATION
Tel: 512-322-3912
Fax: 561-961-5684
V-Card

Aaron Radbil, who leads the firm’s Austin, Texas office, is a founding partner of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC.

Mr. Radbil has extensive experience litigating class actions under federal and state consumer protection statutes. He has negotiated settlements on behalf of millions of class members, tried cases to verdict in federal and state courts, and briefed and argued issues of significant consumer interest before federal and state courts of appeals.
 
Mr. Radbil was recently appointed class counsel in the following class actions:
 
  • Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. (S.D. Ind.); Toure and Heard v. Navient Solutions, Inc. (S.D. Ind.) ($19.74 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act); 
  • Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ga.) ($30.4 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Markos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ga.) ($16.4 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Luster v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) ($14.8 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act​);
  • Prater v. Medicredit, Inc. and The Outsource Group, Inc. (E.D. Mo.) ($6.75 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • James v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (M.D. Fla.) ($3.75 million class action settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act​);
  • Dancer v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (Sup. Ct. Cal.) ($3 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Prather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ga.) ($2.075 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act​);
  • Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC (S.D. Fla.) (preliminary approval of $1.432 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Jones v. I.Q. Data International, Inc. (D.N.M.) ($1 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Schwyhart v. AmSher Collection Services, Inc. (N.D. Ala.) (nearly $1 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, plus substantial injunctive relief);
  • Harper v. Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP (N.D. Cal.) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Jallo v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (E.D. Tex.) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act​);
  • Brown v. Hunt & Henriques, Attorneys at Law (N.D. Cal.) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Schuchardt v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark (N.D. Cal.) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Silva v. Unifund CCR, LLC and Pilot Receivables Management LLC (W.D. Wash.) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);  
  • Gonzalez v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC (S.D. Fla.) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Hunter v. Nicholas Financial Corp. (S.D. Fla.) (settlement under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act).
 
Mr. Radbil’s notable appellate decisions include:
 
  • Dickens v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2017 WL 3616345 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017) (reversing the district court's order denying class certification, and holding that a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act plaintiff is entitled to a trial by jury on statutory damages);
  • Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, 829 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2016) (reversing the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding, as a matter of first impression, that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires any debt collector—first or subsequent—to send a validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt);
  • Lea v. Buy Direct, L.L.C., 755 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2014) (reversing the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s action under the Truth in Lending Act, finding that harm is not a prerequisite for relief under the Act);
  • Payne v. Progressive Fin. Servs., Inc., 748 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2014) (reversing the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, holding that the defendant’s unaccepted offer of judgment did not moot the plaintiff’s action);
  • Stout v. FreeScore, LLC, 743 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s action under the Credit Repair Organization Act, finding that FreeScore.com falls squarely within the definition of a credit repair organization);
  • Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 701 F.3d 369 (11th Cir. 2012) (dismissing the defendant’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the defendant did not adequately preserve its right to appeal an interlocutory order where it ultimately consented to the judgment into which the interlocutory order merged);
  • Guajardo v. GC Services, LP, No. 11-20269, 2012 WL 5419505 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2012) (reversing the district court’s order granting a defendant’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, to alter or amend the verdict, and for a new trial, and directing the district court to enter judgment in the plaintiff’s favor);
  • Sorensen v. Credit Int’l Corp., 475 F. App’x 244 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees against a consumer);
  • Ponce v. BCA Fin. Serv., Inc., 467 F. App’x 806, 809 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming the district court’s findings that the defendant violated several provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that the defendant was unable to take advantage of the bona fide error defense to the plaintiff’s claims, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the maximum statutory damage award available);
  • Mady v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 59 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (holding that a consumer who resolves a legal action with a warrantor, pursuant to Florida’s offer of judgment statute, is a prevailing party under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and may recover attorneys’ fees as allowed by the Act);
  • Talley v. U.S. Dep’t. of Agric., 595 F. 3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that the United States’ sovereign immunity does not protect it, or its agencies, from liability under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated (June 10, 2010), on rehearing en banc (September 24, 2010), decision affirmed, No. 09-2123, 2010 WL 5887796 (7th Cir. Oct. 1, 2010);
  • Oppenheim v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 627 F. 3d 833 (11th Cir. 2010) (endorsing a broad interpretation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding that a “debt,” as statutorily defined, is created where an obligation to pay arises from a transaction, even absent an extension of credit).
 
Mr. Radbil can be reached by email at aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com.