Kline v. Clinic
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-01590
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Kline v. Mayo Clinic, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the motion of the law firm Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Nancy Kline due to a fundamental disagreement over legal strategy, and granted a limited stay of discovery deadlines for Kline until April 15, 2026 while she seeks new counsel.
Plaintiff Nancy Kline, who is now without legal representation in this lawsuit against Mayo Clinic and must comply with upcoming discovery and sanctions-related deadlines on her own unless she finds new counsel. The other four named plaintiffs in the case are not affected by this order. The withdrawing attorneys at Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. have specific obligations to notify Kline and return her files.
What happened
In Kline v. Mayo Clinic (Court File No. 22-cv-01590), plaintiff Nancy Kline's attorneys at the law firm Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. asked the court for permission to stop representing her, citing a fundamental disagreement with her over the strategy and substance of her case. Kline herself confirmed this disagreement in a sworn statement and indicated she is actively looking for new lawyers. The other four plaintiffs in the lawsuit are not affected by this order and continue to be represented by the same firm.
The court also addressed a separate but related matter: a prior court order from February 26, 2026 (issued in a related lead case, Rubin v. Mayo Clinic) had required the parties to either reach an agreement on outstanding discovery issues — meaning the exchange of information and documents — or face a court ruling on those issues by March 19, 2026. Kline, acting without a lawyer, asked the court to pause that deadline for 30 days. The court agreed to a limited pause, extending her discovery-related deadlines to April 15, 2026, but made clear that the court will rule on any unresolved discovery issues after that date whether or not Kline has found new counsel by then.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the law firm's motion to withdraw and granted Kline's emergency motion to stay only to the limited extent described above, otherwise denying it. The firm is required to send Kline a copy of the order, return her files to her immediately, and file proof with the court that it did so within seven days. Kline is now proceeding without a lawyer (known as proceeding "pro se") and is expected to follow all court rules and deadlines just as any represented party would.
The detailed version
- Nancy Kline, et al. v. Mayo Clinic et al., No. 22-cv-01590 (JRT/ECW)
- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- March 19, 2026
Background
This is one of several consolidated cases against Mayo Clinic. The operative complaint names five plaintiffs; this order concerns only plaintiff Nancy Kline. On February 13, 2026, six named attorneys at the law firm Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. moved to withdraw as counsel for Kline without substitution (meaning no replacement counsel was being brought in at the time of withdrawal). The stated basis was a fundamental disagreement between Kline and her attorneys over the strategy and substance of her representation. Kline herself submitted an affidavit under penalty of perjury confirming the fundamental disagreement and stating she was seeking new counsel. Defendants did not oppose the motion.
Separately, on March 12, 2026, Kline filed a pro se (self-represented) Emergency Motion to Stay the discovery ruling that had been issued in the lead consolidated case, Rubin v. Mayo Clinic (No. 22-cv-01427). That February 26, 2026 oral order had directed the parties to either reach a stipulation on outstanding discovery supplementation and on the amount of reasonable expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs) as a potential sanction, or face a court ruling on those issues by March 19, 2026.
Legal Standards Applied
- District of Minnesota Local Rule 83.7(c) requires a lawyer seeking to withdraw without substitution to provide notice to the client and show good cause. - The decision to allow withdrawal without substitution is within the court's discretion. See Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1994). - Relevant factors include: (1) reasons for withdrawal; (2) prejudice to the parties; (3) effect on the administration of justice; and (4) delay in resolution. - Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)(4), which governs attorneys practicing before the court under Local Rule 83.6(a), permits withdrawal when a client insists on action the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement. - The court also referenced Rule 1.16(a)(3), which mandates withdrawal if the lawyer has been discharged.
Rulings
1. Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. 52) — GRANTED. Based on in-camera (private, on-the-record) representations made at a Zoom hearing on March 16, 2026, the court found good cause existed. The record showed a fundamental disagreement between Kline and her counsel. The court found no undue prejudice to defendants or the other plaintiffs, noting the cases are soon to be severed.
2. Emergency Motion to Stay (Dkt. 61) — GRANTED IN PART, otherwise DENIED. The court granted a limited stay of Kline's discovery supplementation obligations and the deadline to reach a stipulation on remaining discovery issues, extending them to April 15, 2026. If no stipulated compromise is reached by that date, the parties must notify the court, and the court will rule on outstanding discovery issues regardless of whether Kline is then represented by counsel.
Sanctions / Reasonable Expenses
The court also addressed the apportionment of reasonable expenses potentially owed by Kline in connection with Mayo Clinic's Motion to Compel. The deadline for the parties to notify the court of any agreement on reasonable expenses was extended to March 23, 2026. Kline agreed at the hearing to have attorney Gregory Erickson (now former counsel) lead negotiations on her behalf as a courtesy, while retaining her right to reject any proposed compromise. The court explicitly warned that rejecting any compromise will not relieve Kline of paying reasonable expenses if the court determines she owes them; it will simply require the court to determine the amount.
Pro Se Status and Obligations
Kline is now proceeding pro se. The court advised her that pro se status does not excuse compliance with Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or court orders, citing Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005); Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2002); and Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). The court directed her to resources available on the District of Minnesota website.
Ministerial Directives
Withdrawing counsel must (a) immediately send Kline a copy of the order by U.S. mail and email, (b) file a certificate of service within seven days, and (c) immediately return Kline's files to her (retaining a copy at their own expense). Kline's address for service of record is 730 Neville Ct SE, Rochester, MN 55904, unless a new attorney files a notice of representation.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.