Angela Johnson v. Mayo Clinic

This order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright in Angela Johnson v. Mayo Clinic, No. 24-cv-01523 (JRT/ECW), resolves three motions heard at a Zoom hearing on March 16, 2026.

Motion to Withdraw (Granted) Attorneys Gregory M. Erickson, Vincent J. Fahnlander, William F. Mohrman, Benjamin P. Lanari, Maxwell D. Becker, and Peter D. Linder of Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. moved to withdraw as counsel of record without substitution. The stated basis was a fundamental disagreement over litigation strategy and the fact that Johnson had discharged the firm. Johnson herself submitted an affidavit confirming she wanted 'immediate discontinuance of representation' by all named attorneys. Mayo Clinic did not oppose the motion.

Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 83.7(c), withdrawal without substitution requires notice to the client and a showing of good cause. The court applied a four-factor test drawn from Eighth Circuit and district precedent: (1) reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice to the parties, (3) effect on administration of justice, and (4) delay in resolution. The court also noted that the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct — which govern attorneys practicing in this district under Local Rule 83.6(a) — mandate withdrawal when a client discharges their lawyer (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(3)) and permit withdrawal when the client insists on action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4)). Finding good cause, the court granted the motion. Counsel was ordered to (a) send the order to Johnson by mail and email and file a certificate of service within seven days, (b) return the client file to Johnson immediately (retaining a copy at counsel's own expense), and (c) direct future service to Johnson's address in La Crosse, Wisconsin unless new counsel files a notice of appearance.

Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines (Granted in Part, Denied in Part) This case is part of a set of consolidated actions with Rubin v. Mayo Clinic, No. 22-cv-01427. At a February 26, 2026 hearing in the Rubin lead case, the court had addressed Mayo Clinic's Combined Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Motion for Sanctions, setting a March 19, 2026 deadline for the parties to reach a stipulation on discovery and reasonable expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs), failing which the court would issue a plaintiff-by-plaintiff ruling. Johnson moved on March 12, 2026 to stay (pause) those deadlines given the pending withdrawal of her counsel.

The court granted a limited stay, extending Johnson's deadline to supplement her discovery responses and for the parties to reach a stipulated compromise to April 15, 2026. However, the court made clear that after that date it will rule on any outstanding discovery issues regardless of whether Johnson has retained new counsel. The motion was otherwise denied.

Regarding the sanctions/reasonable expenses component, the parties had already been granted an extension during the March 16 hearing. The new deadline to notify the court of any agreement on reasonable expenses is March 23, 2026. Johnson agreed at the hearing that her former lead attorney, Gregory Erickson, could lead negotiations on her behalf — even though he no longer represents her — with the understanding that she retains the right to reject any proposed compromise. The court warned that rejecting a compromise will not excuse Johnson from paying reasonable expenses; it will simply require the court to determine the amount of her responsibility.

Ex Parte Communications (Ordered Disclosed) Mayo Clinic requested that the court produce ex parte emails and voicemails that Johnson had sent directly to the court (i.e., communications made to the court without the opposing party's knowledge or presence), which the court had referenced in a March 10, 2026 email to counsel. Johnson did not object, and the court granted the request. The court's chambers was directed to send copies of those communications to all counsel and to Johnson via email.

Pro Se Status Johnson is now proceeding without a lawyer (pro se). The court advised her that pro se litigants are held to the same substantive and procedural requirements as represented parties, citing Eighth Circuit precedent, and provided links to the District of Minnesota's pro se resources.