Ehlers v. University of Minnesota
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:18-cv-02794
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Ehlers v. University of Minnesota, Judge Leung granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and extended most deadlines without deciding the case’s merits.
Jessica Ehlers and her former attorney, David R. Forro, were directly affected. Forro was permitted to withdraw, Ehlers was required to proceed under the new deadlines unless she obtained new counsel, and the University of Minnesota remained a party to the case.
What happened
In Ehlers v. University of Minnesota, attorney David R. Forro asked to stop representing Jessica Ehlers without a replacement lawyer. The University of Minnesota took no position on the request.
The court found that the attorney-client relationship had completely broken down, which supplied the required good cause under the District of Minnesota’s local rules. It granted the withdrawal motion, struck the scheduled hearing, and ordered a new pretrial schedule that would extend most existing deadlines by about 60 days.
Judge Tony N. Leung also ordered Forro to send Ehlers the order and new schedule, directed the clerk to update Ehlers’s contact information and send her a guide for people representing themselves, and warned that failing to follow court orders could lead to sanctions or dismissal. The order did not decide the underlying case.
The detailed version
- Ehlers v. University of Minnesota · No. 0:18-cv-02794
- Patrick Schiltz
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Attorney David R. Forro moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Jessica Ehlers without substitution under District of Minnesota Local Rule 83.7(c). The University of Minnesota took no position on the motion. The court had scheduled a January 24, 2020 hearing but concluded that no hearing was necessary.
Analysis
Local Rule 83.7(c) permits withdrawal without substitute counsel only upon a motion and a showing of “good cause.” The court explained that good cause is evaluated case by case and may exist when there has been a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship or a level of conflict that interferes with resolving the case fairly, quickly, and inexpensively.
Based on communications sent to the court by Ehlers and Forro, the court found that the attorney-client relationship had completely broken down. It therefore concluded that good cause existed and granted Forro’s motion to withdraw. Forro and Caldecott & Forro, PLC were no longer counsel of record for Ehlers.
Orders
The court struck the January 24 hearing. It ordered that a Third Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order issue and found good cause to extend most existing deadlines by approximately 60 days, except that it did not extend the deadline for the parties’ June 1, 2020 status letter.
Forro was ordered to serve Ehlers by mail and email with the order and the new scheduling order, and to file an affidavit by January 28, 2020 detailing his service efforts. The clerk was ordered to update Ehlers’s contact information and send her copies of the order, the new scheduling order, and the court’s guide for people representing themselves in federal court.
The court warned that failure to prosecute the action, comply with applicable rules, or follow court orders could result in remedies including costs, fines, attorney fees, evidentiary limits, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment. The order did not resolve the merits of Ehlers’s claims against the University of Minnesota.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.