Photo: Superior Cannabis Company (Jeffrey Robert Brinkman – Center)
MINNESOTA — Court records from a recent Minnesota case show that a legal action filed by Jeff Brinkman in 2025 was dismissed, with courts awarding attorney’s fees to defendants under Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. (27-CV-24-13993)
In Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Brinkman was the plaintiff in Brinkman v. MN Is Ready Action, et al., Court File No. 27-CV-24-13993, a case that named multiple individuals and organizations as defendants. On January 31, 2025, the court granted defendants’ Special Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 554.09, concluding that the claims were subject to dismissal under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA).
Following dismissal, the court entered an Order Granting Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in February of 2025, awarding more than $31,000 in combined attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing defendants, as required by statute when a UPEPA motion succeeds. The court’s order noted that defendants prevailed on the special motions and that the fee awards were mandated under Minn. Stat. § 554.16(1).
Separately, court records reflect that Brinkman has been involved in multiple harassment restraining order (HRO) proceedings over several years. In 2018, an HRO was issued against Brinkman following findings that he continued contacting the petitioner after being asked to stop, expanded communications after blocks were imposed, and engaged in repeated online postings and emails concerning the petitioner and others. The court’s findings described fixation on the petitioner’s alleged homosexual identity, repeated contact, and a continuing course of conduct that met the statutory definition of harassment at the time. (50-CV-18-1788)
In another harassment restraining order proceeding, Jeffrey Brinkman was found to have attempted to extort the petitioner and his employer for money. (50-CV-18-1795)
Court transcripts and filings also show that a later HRO petition filed by Brinkman and his daughter, Abbigail Brinkman, in prior years was withdrawn and then dismissed with prejudice by the court.
Legal experts note that under Minnesota law, harassment restraining orders require proof of repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts that have a substantial adverse effect on safety, security, or privacy, and that courts routinely exclude evidence that is remote in time or unsupported by direct proof.
The cases reflect the judiciary’s increasing reliance on procedural safeguards such as UPEPA to address litigation involving public expression, as well as heightened scrutiny of evidentiary foundations in harassment proceedings.
All referenced outcomes are drawn from publicly available court records.
Case Number: 27-CV-24-13993 (Hennepin County Court)