JENNIFER Maria de la Luz ROBBINS

representative cases

​

• In May 2023, represented CEO of a cement contractor and his company accused of rigging bids to several western-Minneapolis suburban municipalities. We obtained across-the-board jury-trial acquittals for our clients—and even though our clients’ only alleged “co-conspirator” pleaded guilty to the same alleged bid-rigging conspiracy and testified at trial.  

  • Details:

    • ​​​​Our clients were Steven Dornsbach and his company, Kamida, Inc.

    • On July 6, 2017, the FBI helped Mr. Dornsbach's decades-long "friend," Clarence Olson, secretly record him. Approximately four years later, the government persuaded Mr. Olson to plead guilty to the alleged bid-rigging conspiracy.

    • ​​In March 2022, the United States Department of Justice indicted Mr. Dornsbach and Kamida, Inc., alleging criminal bid-rigging conspiracy. We then filed numerous discovery motions, many of which sought information regarding the Department of Justice's attorneys' improper influence of Mr. Olson regarding a letter he wrote his sentencing judge in October 2021. Unfortunately, the courts denied many of our requests, contending that our allegations of the Department of Justice's improper influence and/or involvement in the Mr. Olson's October 2021 letter amounted to "speculation."

    • We went to trial in May 2023. The Department of Justice brought in about ten lawyers and paralegals from across the country. It wasn't enough. ​

    • At trial:

      • ​​​Mr. Olson testified against our clients. In response, we contended the FBI and the DOJ concocted a false narrative through intimidation, conducting multiple interviews of him, and manufacturing evidence. Mr. Olson admitted that at the time of the alleged “rigged” bids, he didn’t even have knowledge that a bid-rigging agreement existed.

      • We proved that the Department of Justice’s lead prosecutor induced Mr. Olson and his then-attorney to write the October 2021 letter to his sentencing judge. Thus, our pretrial “speculation” was 100% accurate—and the Department of Justice failed to disclose all of it to us in pretrial discovery.

      • We proved that the Department of Justice’s “summary” exhibits constituted cherry-picked nonsense. 

      • We proved that the FBI selectively recorded statements, using a recorder when it suited their purposes and then turning it off when their “Special Agent” decided to “recount” what Mr. Dornsbach allegedly said.

      • We used a top-flight expert, Tom Gorowsky, to show that Kamida’s pricing before, during, and after the indictment period was in the same range for non-“rigged” bids.

  • ​On May 10, 2023, the jury announced its not-guilty verdicts across the board. 

• Minority-shareholder litigation. The plaintiff, a daughter and sister of our clients, sued to recover $454,735,000 for her claims of minority-shareholder oppression, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, etc. The case included allegations of waste of company assets, breaches of various family-trust documents, and even includes our defense of the plaintiff's probate matter in Florida. As noted in the district court's 354-page opinion, our clients offered to settle her lawsuit for approximately $150 million. The district court awarded the plaintiff $41.6 million for her claims--after a 16-day trial involving 14 witnesses and 413 exhibits. The media covered the case extensively, including the Daily Mail and other articles (and some were inaccurate, such as the StarTribune falsely stating the plaintiff sought only $228 million). The litigation remains ongoing.

• Class-action defense. Our client is one of the world's largest publicly traded debt-collecting corporations. Using another law firm, our client brought an action against a Georgia consumer seeking to collect payment on a delinquent credit card debt. In response, the consumer asserted a class action on behalf of similarly situated debtors that our client had sued. Our client called us to substitute in as counsel. In the end, we obtained a denial of class certification against a putative class of debtors in the district court, which was then affirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals.

• 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. The case was covered by Jon Tevlin in an extremely well-written column.

• 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.

​

awards

​

• Named "Attorney of the Year" by Minnesota Lawyer (2024)

• Selected among Minnesota Lawyer's "Top Women in Law" (2023)

• 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 each year since 2019 and a “Minnesota Rising Star” by Super Lawyers (2014-2017)

• Named an “Up and Coming Attorney” by Minnesota Lawyer (2013)

​

publications

​

• 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).
   

speeches

​

• Working with Experts -- Methodologies and Challenges in Calculating and Proving Damages, Co-Presenter, Damages and other Remedies in Commercial Litigation Seminar, Minnesota CLE, Minneapolis, Minnesota (December 19, 2023).

• Rising to the Challenge: Stories of Success, Moderator, Minnesota Women Lawyers Member Monthly Series (December 11, 2023).

• Negotiating the Deal, co-presenter, Shareholder Disputes Seminar, Minnesota CLE, Minneapolis, Minnesota (January 25, 2021).

• LEAD: Leading Through Listening Empowerment Accountability and Delegation, panelist, Minnesota Women Lawyers Conference for Women in the Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 27, 2018).

• Internal Investigations, co-presenter, 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?, co-presenter, New Law Series, Minnesota CLE, 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).

 

​

boards/community

​

• ​Immediate Past President, Minnesota Women Lawyers (2023-present)

• President, Minnesota Women Lawyers (2022-23) 

• Board Member, Minnesota Board of Psychology (2015 - 2020)

  • Appointed by Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton

  • Reappointed by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz

​

bar admissions

​

• 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

​

education

​

• University of Texas School of Law (2007)

  • J.D.

  • Managing Editor & Staff Editor, Texas Journal of Women and the Law

• St. Mary’s University (San Antonio, Texas) (2003)

  • B.A., Psychology, summa cum laude