Angela Johnson v. Mayo Clinic

Background

Plaintiff Angela Johnson brought suit against Mayo Clinic in the District of Minnesota. She was represented by Gregory M. Erickson, Vincent J. Fahnlander, William F. Mohrman, Benjamin P. Lanari, Maxwell D. Becker, and Peter D. Linder of the law firm Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.

This case is related to a consolidated set of actions captioned Rubin v. Mayo Clinic (No. 22-cv-01427). On February 26, 2026, the court held a hearing in that lead case on Mayo Clinic's Combined Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses and Motion for Sanctions. The court gave the parties until March 19, 2026 to reach a stipulation on discovery and reasonable expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs), failing which the court stated it would enter relief on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis.

Motion to Withdraw

On February 24, 2026, Johnson's attorneys filed a Motion to Withdraw as Legal Counsel of Record Without Substitution (Dkt. 18). The stated basis was a fundamental disagreement between Johnson and her attorneys over strategy and the substance of representation, and the fact that Johnson had sought to immediately discharge the firm. Johnson submitted a sworn affidavit (under penalty of perjury) confirming she wanted immediate discontinuance of representation by all named attorneys (Dkt. 19 ¶ 3), and noted she was in the process of seeking new counsel (Dkt. 19 ¶ 5). Mayo Clinic did not oppose the motion.

The court applied District of Minnesota Local Rule 83.7(c), which requires notice to the client and a showing of good cause for withdrawal without substitution. The court also referenced Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(3), which mandates withdrawal when a client discharges the lawyer, and Rule 1.16(b)(4), which permits withdrawal when the client insists on action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement. The court evaluated relevant factors including: (1) reasons for withdrawal; (2) prejudice to the parties; (3) effect on the administration of justice; and (4) delay in resolution.

Finding that the record demonstrated Johnson no longer wished her counsel to represent her — and that Johnson had in fact discharged them — the court found good cause and granted the Motion to Withdraw.

Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines

On March 12, 2026, Johnson, now acting without a lawyer (pro se), filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines (Dkt. 26), seeking to pause the February 26, 2026 oral order's deadlines given the pending withdrawal motion.

The court granted the motion only in part. It extended Johnson's discovery supplementation obligations and the deadline for the parties to reach a stipulation on remaining discovery issues to April 15, 2026. The court was explicit that 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 Johnson is represented by counsel at that time.

The motion was otherwise denied.

Reasonable Expenses and Sanctions

The court also addressed the issue of reasonable expenses potentially owed by Johnson in connection with Mayo Clinic's Motion to Compel in the Rubin lead case. The parties sought an extension of the deadline to confer on the amount of any expenses. The court granted that extension during the hearing, setting a new deadline of March 23, 2026, for the parties to notify the court of any agreement on reasonable expenses.

Johnson agreed at the hearing that attorney Gregory Erickson — despite no longer representing her — would take the lead on those negotiations, with the understanding that she remains free to reject any compromise. The court explicitly warned that rejecting any compromise will not excuse Johnson from paying reasonable expenses; it only means the court will determine the amount of her responsibility, if any, itself.

Ex Parte Communications

Mayo Clinic asked the court to disclose all ex parte (one-sided, without the other party present) emails and voicemails sent to the court by Johnson, as referenced in the court's March 10, 2026 email to counsel. Johnson did not object. The court granted this request and ordered that chambers would send those communications to all counsel and to Johnson by email.

Johnson's Pro Se Status

With her attorneys withdrawn, Johnson is now proceeding pro se (without a lawyer). The court advised Johnson that pro se litigants must comply with the Local Rules for the District of Minnesota, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court's orders, and are not excused from doing so simply because they lack an attorney. The court directed Johnson to update the Clerk's Office with her current mailing address and provided links to pro se resources on the District of Minnesota's website.

Disposition