Kline v. Clinic

Background

This case is part of a set of consolidated federal lawsuits filed against Mayo Clinic and related defendants. The lead consolidated case is Rubin v. Mayo Clinic, No. 22-cv-01427. Nancy Kline is one of five named plaintiffs in this particular action. The law firm Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. — through attorneys Gregory M. Erickson, Vincent J. Fahnlander, William F. Mohrman, Benjamin P. Lanari, Maxwell D. Becker, and Peter D. Linder — represented all plaintiffs in this case.

Motion to Withdraw

On February 13, 2026, the attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff Nancy Kline only, without substituting new counsel. The stated basis was a fundamental disagreement between Kline and her attorneys over the strategy and substance of her representation. Kline herself submitted a sworn affidavit confirming the disagreement and noting she was seeking new counsel. Mayo Clinic and the other defendants did not oppose the motion. The court held a video hearing on March 16, 2026, at which Kline participated, and also received in camera (private, on-the-record) representations from Kline and her counsel.

Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 83.7(c), an attorney seeking to withdraw without substituting new counsel must provide notice to the client and demonstrate good cause. The court has discretion whether to allow such withdrawal. See Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1994). The court considers: (1) the reasons for withdrawal; (2) prejudice to the parties; (3) the effect on the administration of justice; and (4) the delay that would result. The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern attorneys in this district, permit withdrawal when a client insists on action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement. Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4).

The court found good cause to grant the withdrawal, concluding that the record — including the in camera hearing — demonstrated a genuine fundamental disagreement between Kline and her attorneys over how to proceed. The court also found no undue prejudice to Mayo Clinic or the other plaintiffs, given the current status of the case and the impending severance of the consolidated cases.

This order does not affect the representation of the four other plaintiffs in this action, who remain represented by Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.

Discovery Stay — Kline's Emergency Motion

Separately, on March 12, 2026, Kline filed a pro se (self-represented) emergency motion asking the court to pause (stay) a prior discovery ruling. The prior ruling arose from a February 26, 2026 hearing in the lead case, Rubin v. Mayo Clinic, where the court addressed Mayo Clinic's Combined Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses and Motion for Sanctions. At that hearing, the court gave the parties until March 19, 2026 to reach a stipulation on discovery and on reasonable expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs), failing which the court said it would enter an order awarding relief to defendants on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis.

Given the withdrawal of her counsel, the court granted a limited stay for Kline. Kline's discovery supplementation obligations and the parties' deadline to reach a stipulation on discovery issues are extended to April 15, 2026. If no agreement 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 represented by counsel at that time.

Regarding reasonable expenses (potential sanctions), the court extended the deadline for the parties to notify the court of any agreement to March 23, 2026. The court noted that Kline agreed at the hearing to have attorney Gregory Erickson lead negotiations on her behalf as a practical matter — even though he no longer represents her — with the explicit understanding that she is free to reject any compromise he reaches. The court also clarified that rejection of any proposed compromise will not relieve Kline of her potential obligation to pay reasonable expenses; it will only require the court to determine the amount of her responsibility, if any.

Kline's emergency motion was granted only to the limited extent of these deadline extensions and was otherwise denied.

Pro Se Status and Obligations

Kline is now proceeding pro se. The court directed her to update the Clerk's Office with her mailing address for service if she does not register for electronic filing (CM/ECF) access. The court advised her that pro se status does not exempt her from complying with the District of Minnesota Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court's orders, citing Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005), and related authority. The court pointed her to pro se resources on the District of Minnesota's website.

Disposition