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., No. 1:15-cv-00716-LJM-MJD, ECF No. 177 (S.D. Ind. July 13, 2017); Toure and Heard v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-0071-LJM-TAB (S.D. Ind. July 13, 2017) ($19.74 million class action settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act); 315 F.R.D. 501 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (certifying class action under the TCPA);
  • James v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2017 WL 2472499 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2017) ($3.75 million class action settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act​);
  • Schwyhart v. AmSher Collection Services, Inc., 2017 WL 1034201 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 17, 2017) (nearly $1 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, plus substantial injunctive relief);
  • Harper v. Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP, 2017 WL 995215 (N.D. Cal. Mar 15, 2017) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Jallo v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., 2017 WL 914291 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2017) (settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act​);
  • Prather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 WL 770132 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2017) (preliminary approval of $2.075 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act​);
  • Luster v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01058-TWT, Doc. 60 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 23, 2017) (preliminary approval of $14.8 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act​);
  • Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 5109533 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2016) ($30.4 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Markos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 4708028 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2016) ($16.4 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Schuchardt v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark, 314 F.R.D. 673 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (class action settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Brown v. Hunt & Henriques, Attorneys at Law, Case 5:15-cv-01111-EJD, Doc. 45 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2016) (class action settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Silva v. Unifund CCR, LLC and Pilot Receivables Management LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00799-TSZ, Doc. 30 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2016) (class action settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);  
  • Prater v. Medicredit, Inc. and The Outsource Group, Inc., 2015 WL 8331602 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 7, 2015) ($6.75 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Jones v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., 2015 WL 5704016 (D.N.M. Sept. 23, 2015) ($1 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Gonzalez v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2015 WL 738329 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2015) (class action settlement under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
  • Dancer v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, No. BC472154 (Sup. Ct. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014) ($3 million settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act);
  • Hunter v. Nicholas Financial Corp., No. 0:13-cv-61126-DMM, Doc. 29 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2014) (class action settlement under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act).
 
Mr. Radbil’s notable appellate decisions include:
 
  • 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. Feb. 21, 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);
  • Cano v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 8 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing an award of attorneys’ fees and costs entered against a Florida consumer, finding that an automobile manufacturer’s formal offer of judgment failed to satisfy necessary substantive and procedural requirements);
  • Jones v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 385 Ill. App. 3d 740 (2d Dist. 2008) (reversing an order dismissing an Illinois consumer’s action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, holding that an automobile buyer’s ineligibility to participate in the manufacturer’s dispute resolution process did not deprive him of his right to file suit under the Act).
 
Mr. Radbil can be reached by email at aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com.