SCOTT DUNCOMBE vs. BARFRESH FOOD GROUP, INC - Jackie Rose Kruger we believe is the attorney for the plaintiff based on the online Los Angeles County case summary for this matter, in addition to case case filings where she is listed as the responsible attorney and she filed personal declarations relating to this issue.

From the tentative ruling this is what happened:

Jackie Kruger and her Kruger Law Firm represented the plaintiff in this matter, who sued Barfresh and other defendants. Barfresh counter-sued her client.

Then Ms. Kruger made the very bad decision to file a motion to strike the cross-complaint on the grounds it was a SLAPP lawsuit.

Kruger lost the motion.

The judge initially noted that attorney's fees must be paid to the other party if this type of motion to strike is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary day.

The court expressly said the motion attorney Jackie Kruger filed was "totally and completely without merit."

That is as harsh an assessment from a judge about an attorney one may read.

The judge went on ...

The motion Jackie Kruger, Esq., filed was frivolous and deserving to be sanctioned by the payment of attorney fees.

In particular, the judge said Kruger's motion:

- Failed to address any of the causes of action actually pled in the Barfresh cross-complaint.

Note: This is bad. How on earth does one file a motion to strike claims without even addressing the claims?

- There were no legal grounds for the motion. The judge indicated the only reason Kruger complained about the cross-complaint is because it, well, was a cross-complaint to the complaint. The judge goes on to say this is by definition true of every cross-complaint.

Note: This is stunning and reflects a serious lack of legal competence.

- No evidence supported the motion. The judge said Kruger only provided conclusory statements "without evidentiary support" for the motion.

Note: Again, very bad. An attorney should not be filing a motion without evidentiary support. Even first year attorneys know this.

The judge then reiterated that what Jackie Rose Kruger was doing was completely and totally without merit and awarding Barfresh legal fees in response was proper.

$15,515 in legal fees were awarded.

Technically, the amount is an award for defendant against Jackie Kruger's client. But we believe there is a likelihood attorney Kruger is going to be on the hook for this if her client files a malpractice claim against her office.

Can it get worse then causing a judge to hammer your legal competence and see an award of $15,515?

It might for Jackie Rose Kruger.

The State Bar may become involved.

The SLAPP statute she filed her motion under, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, says in subdivision (j) anyone filing this type of motion to strike must notify the Judicial Council of the filing, and provide a copy of the court's order and any award of fees. This information is a public record.

So ... we checked the Judicial Council's SLAPP website (http://www.courts.ca.gov/slapp.htm) and reviewed Los Angeles cases.

We could not find that attorney Jackie Rose Kruger complied with the statute.

Feel free to check it out yourself to see if we missed the filing.

Bottom line of what Kruger appears to have done:

- Filed a motion without evidentiary support.

- Filed a motion without proper legal grounds.

- Filed a motion to strike a cross-complaint that did not even address the claims in the cross-complaint.

- Pursued matters that were totally and completely without merit.

- $15,515 in sanctions.

- Did not notify the Judicial Council of the motion.

- Did not send the Judicial Council a copy of the order denying her frivolous motion.



If you are considering hiring Jackie Rose Kruger and the Kruger Law Firm you may want to take a hard look at the harsh comments from the judge.

Can it still get worse?

Actually, yes.

For your case, can you imagine if she was your attorney and before the same judge or another judge in the court aware of the situation?

It is doubtful the judge is going to think Kruger is a stellar pillar of competent professionalism.

Could it impact your case? Again, you need to seriously evaluate what the judge said about attorney Jackie Kruger's actions.

Attorney Jackie Kruger sent us this message:

"you have information incorrect. There were never sanctions entered against Jackie Kruger - although sanctions were awarded against a business client, the judge specifically ordered that none are awarded against Ms. Kruger or her lawfirm."

Actually, we specifically said in our review of the judge's order that technically the legal fees (sanctions) are against Kruger's client, but the basis for the sanctions involves legal work by Ms. Kruger.

If attorney Kruger had carefully read what we wrote she wouldn't be further embarassing herself.

Note: We have concerns about an attorney who cannot understand what has been written and instead makes assumptions to personally suit her.

Worse, section 425.16 - the statute the sanctions were issued under - only says a party is responsible for fees as sanctions. There is no provision to directly impose fees on a bad attorney.

If Jackie Kruger had done her homework, like a good attorney would do, she would know in Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604, the court ruled section 425.16 sanctions can only be imposed against a party and not their attorney.

In other words, if an attorney like Ms. Kruger sends a message that "the sanctions were imposed against my client and not me" - as if that means the court is exonerating the attorney from wrongdoing - they are intentionally and blatantly being misleading.

It is a misrepresentation by omitting the law.

Which is why we originally noted although sanctions were technically imposed against the client, we view the judge's order as particularly harsh in the evaluation of Ms. Kruger's legal abilities, and she could see a malpractice claim from her client and possibly hear from the State Bar if the statutory notice requirements were not followed.

In any event, based on Jackie Kruger's email and what we consider an implied misrepresentation, we would definitely not recommend hiring this attorney.

Jackie Rose Kruger was admitted to the California Bar in 2004. Bar Number 231085.

The Kruger Law Firm
485 South Robertson Boulevard Suite 4
Beverly Hills, California 90211

Law School: Michigan