Jennifer ("Jenny") M. Robbins represents Fortune 500 companies and individuals in a variety of high-stakes controversies and complex matters, sometimes as plaintiff and sometimes as defendant. Jenny’s experience ranges from cases involving antitrust violations, trade secret misappropriation, complex class actions, regulatory matters, and other commercial litigation to cases involving white-collar criminal charges, government investigations, and allegations of attorney malpractice and other professional misconduct. Jenny has also served as a key member of several high-profile internal investigations. In 2013, she was selected by Minnesota Lawyer magazine as an “Up & Coming Attorney,” Super Lawyers named her a “Minnesota Rising Star” in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, and a Super Lawyer in 2019. The National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys has repeatedly named her one of the Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys Under 40 in Minnesota.
Jenny is most passionate about advocating for her clients—whether in a courtroom, boardroom, or prosecutor’s office—and she has experience in federal and state courts across the country. She understands that nothing happens in a vacuum and clients trust her candor, decisiveness, and genuine desire to understand, and fight for, their legal, business, or personal goals. With her characteristic attention to detail, people skills, and creative problem solving, Jenny is a key asset in pre-suit negotiations, litigation, and other legal counseling.
Outside of the office, Jenny dedicates her time to the Minnesota Board of Psychology to which she was appointed in 2015 and reappointed in 2019 by Minnesota Governors Mark Dayton and Tim Walz, respectively. She also serves as a Board Member of Minnesota Women Lawyers.?
Representing Dires, LLC (doing business as Personal Comfort Bed), Craig Miller, and Scott Stenzel in defending against Select Comfort Corporation’s allegations that Personal Comfort Bed’s advertising violated Select Comfort’s trademarks and that Personal Comfort Bed made false statements in its advertising. After a 14-day jury trial in which Select Comfort sought more than $17.1 million in damages, the jury found no trademark infringement, no trademark dilution, no unfair competition, and found in favor of our clients on multiple false advertising claims. In addition, the jury found that our clients prevailed on their counterclaim seeking a judgment that Select Comfort has no trademark rights in the phrase “number bed.” In total, the jury found that Personal Comfort Bed made several false statements and awarded Select Comfort $120,812 in damages against our corporate client only—the jury found no liability whatsoever for our individual clients. The jury thus awarded Select Comfort, a corporation currently worth over $1.32 billion, less than 1% of the damages it sought at trial.
Representing motorcycle and automotive design company Ciro, LLC, Tom Rudd, Ken Madden, Darron May, and Chris Lindloff in defending against Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC’s 18 claims, including allegations of trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty. After lengthy discovery and summary-judgment briefing, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of our clients with respect to 17 of the 18 claims, dismissing claims of copyright infringement, federal and state trade-secret claims, breach of contract, and a statutory conspiracy to injure business claim. Four of our five clients were dismissed from the lawsuit entirely and only a portion of one claim remained against one of our clients. That remaining claim has since been resolved.
Lead counsel representing Christopher W. Madel in a lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration related to the Government’s responses to Madel’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In November 2012 and February 2013, Madel submitted FOIA requests seeking information on oxycodone transactions for use in establishing the extent of the ongoing prescription-drug epidemic, particularly in the Southeastern United States. After the Government’s failure to substantively respond to Madel’s requests over the course of nearly a year (and well beyond the 20-day timeframe required under FOIA), in October 2013, Madel filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The district court granted summary judgment to the Government, which Madel appealed. Ms. Robbins argued the case against the Government at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and obtained reversal of the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings on the issue of segregability of information not appropriate for withholding from disclosure under FOIA, as well as Madel’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Madel v. United States Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration, 784 F.3d 448 (8th Cir. 2015). In January 2017, Ms. Robbins defeated a motion for summary judgment in the District Court. The opinion strongly rebuked the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, stating:
"The Court has given [the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration] the benefit of the doubt throughout this litigation, and [the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration] have time and again failed to establish that they deserve that benefit. Whether by refusing to negotiate with Madel in good faith, or by publicly releasing data that they had mere months before insisted was too sensitive to ever make public, [the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration] have lost their credibility with this Court."
Madel v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Court File 0:13-cv-02832-PAM-FLN, Dkt. 105 (Jan. 11, 2017).
Co-lead counsel representing one of the world’s largest debt-collection companies, Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA), in defending against claims alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and alleged damages claims of $1,000,000. The case proceeded to a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. After deliberating less than a half day, the jury found in favor of our client on all claims.
Led the team who wrote the internal-investigation report relating to former punter Chris Kluwe's release from the Minnesota Vikings. The Vikings investigation generated national news and was praised by both the Vikings and Kluwe. The Vikings described the investigation—which included more than 30 interviews, analysis of two independent experts, and review of electronically-stored information along with hard-copy documents—as “exhaustive.” And although the investigative team’s report remains confidential, Kluwe’s attorney characterized the team's report as “thorough” in the press conference related to the settlement between the Vikings and Kluwe that was covered by multiple media outlets.
Represented trustees of spendthrift trust, including former FBI Director Louis Freeh, against allegations that trustees committed certain actions disqualifying spendthrift nature of the trust. Obtained summary judgment against all such allegations.
Represented Botanic Oil Innovations, Inc. (BOI) in internal investigation and related litigation against competitor Rain Nutrition LLC and former member of BOI's Board of Directors and Medical Advisory Board. After discovering contractual agreement between BOI's then-board member/medical advisor and Rain, BOI filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims for relief: aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and violation of Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After months of discovery, BOI agreed to a favorable settlement with the former board member/medical advisor. BOI continued litigation against Rain, ultimately obtaining judgment against Rain and dismissal of Rain's counterclaims with prejudice. In August 2012, the Court granted BOI's motion for entry of judgment against Rain in the amount of $4,869,288.
Represented Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) in defending against class-action counterclaims which sought to invalidate arbitration awards in which the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) acted as the arbitration organization. After the Minnesota Attorney General sued the NAF in 2009, alleging that the NAF was secretly owned by a hedge fund that held a large stake in the debt-collection industry, the NAF settled and numerous consumers filed class actions against the NAF which were consolidated as part of multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL). PRA opted out of the MDL. NAF and other defendants in the MDL ultimately settled by dismissing pending NAF arbitrations and paying over $3 million in cash. The NAF's MDL settlement agreement confirms that the value of the consumer arbitration claims dismissed following the 2009 settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General is at least $1,090,000,000. In November 2010, PRA obtained a dismissal of Defendant/Counterclaimant Freeman's counterclaims with prejudice on the pleadings, as well as an order confirming the arbitration award. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Freeman, 717 S.E.2d 43 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
Represented client charged with three felony counts of medical-assistance fraud and theft by false representation of a total of more than $100,000. The charges were reported by Minnesota media outlets, including KSTP television, the StarTribune, and the Pioneer Press. After reviewing extensive records produced by the State and filing motions to dismiss the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause, the State of Minnesota, who was represented by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office in this case, agreed to a continuance for dismissal with no required admission of any guilt.
Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing in the national market for prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. In addition to briefing and arguing discovery motions, drafted portions of the motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment on all claims was granted on January 16, 2009. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was later affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).
PLEASE NOTE: All cases are different and past results do not predict future case outcomes.
Repeatedly named in the Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys Under 40 in Minnesota by the National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys
Fellow, The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
Named a “North Star Lawyer” by the Minnesota State Bar Association for providing at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services (2015-2016)
Named a Super Lawyer (2019) and a “Minnesota Rising Star” by Super Lawyers (2014-2017)
Named an “Up and Coming Attorney” by Minnesota Lawyer (2013)
Jenny Robbins, The "What If's" and Unknowns of Starting a New Law Firm, With Equal Right (Winter 2020).
Chris Madel & Jenny Robbins, How to Promote Opportunities for In-Court Experience on a Practical Level, With Equal Right (Spring 2018).
3 Ways To Leverage Your Company’s Compliance Program In Litigation, INSIDECOUNSEL (October 6, 2014) (co-authored).
The Relationship Between Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse: Recommendations for Change to the Texas Legislature TEXAS JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND THE LAW, VOL. 16, ISSUE 1 (Fall 2006).
LEAD: Leading Through Listening Empowerment Accountability and Delegation, Minnesota Women Lawyers Conference for Women in the Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 27, 2018).
Internal Investigations, presented at the Ethics & Compliance Initiative, Managing Ethics in Organizations in Waltham, Massachusetts (June 16, 2016).
Mandated Reporting Meets Privilege: When Can You Talk and When Can You Testify? CLE given in the New Law Series, Minnesota CLE in Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 17, 2014).
Antitrust in Healthcare: Recent Developments, presented at the Minnesota State Bar Association, Corporate Healthcare Symposium in Rochester, Minnesota (September 12, 2013).
Board Member, Minnesota Women Lawyers
Board Member, Minnesota Board of Psychology
Appointed by Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton
Reappointed by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
U.S. District Court, Minnesota
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
State of Minnesota
University of Texas School of Law (2007)
Managing Editor & Staff Editor, Texas Journal of Women and the Law