This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0656
Robert E. Villanueva, Appellant,
vs.
Circle K Stores Inc., et al., Respondents.
Filed November 24, 2025 Affirmed; motion denied Ross, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-24-10809
Robert Eliazar Villanueva, Minneapolis, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)
Stephanie N. Maser, David P. Peterson, Cousineau Malone, P.A., Minnetonka, Minnesota (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Bond, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Robert Villanueva lingered inside a convenience store’s retail area and its restroom
for hours before store staff finally questioned whether he was using drugs and ordered him
to leave. Villanueva sued the store, alleging intrusion upon seclusion (a cleaning employee
attempted to enter a restroom that Villanueva occupied), defamation per se, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. The district court dismissed all claims on summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed facts supported none of them. Because
the undisputed facts establish that the store is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we
affirm.
FACTS
This case involves interactions between a convenience store’s employees and store
visitor, appellant Robert Villanueva. Because the district court granted summary judgment
against Villanueva, we view the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to his appeal.
See Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370, 374–75 (Minn. 2019); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.
Respondents Circle K Stores Inc. and Holiday Station Stores LLC (together, Holiday)
operate a gas station and convenience store in southwest Minneapolis. At that store,
Holiday offers on-site single-toilet restrooms for its customers. The restroom doors are
outside the building and kept locked, so customers access the restroom only after retrieving
the key from inside. Holiday employees monitor and clean the restrooms.
Near the end of August 2023, Villanueva frequented the Holiday store, conversed
with staff, and used its restroom. This case concerns incidents on three days during that
period.
On August 25, a Holiday employee approached the men’s restroom to clean it. She
knocked on the door and announced her intent to enter. She heard no response, but
Villanueva was inside. She unlocked the door and tried to push it open. It opened “an inch
or so” before Villanueva immediately slammed it shut. The employee did not see
Villanueva through the narrow opening.
2 On August 28, a Holiday manager left the retail area to check on Villanueva, whom
she knew was occupying the men’s restroom. She made a noise that Villanueva says
startled him. Villanueva reentered the store and confronted the manager at the cashier’s
counter. The manager was suspicious of Villanueva’s lengthy stays in the restroom and
asked, “Are you doing drugs?” A customer unidentified in the record maneuvered around
Villanueva to the counter, and the manager continued speaking with Villanueva, asking,
“[W]hat are [you] doing in there?” Villanueva remained and engaged with Holiday staff
for the next 40 minutes before eventually leaving.
On August 30, Villanueva loitered inside the store near the counter until a Holiday
employee approached him and said, “[Y]ou gave drugs to a minor.” This employee was
the older sibling of the employee who had tried to enter and clean the restroom on August
25. The younger sibling had reported to her brother that Villanueva had tried to give her
drugs in the store. Villanueva complained about the exchange to Holiday management and
obtained witness affidavits about the encounter from two other Holiday employees.
Holiday staff reviewed the surveillance footage and determined that Villanueva loitered in
the store for hours, distracted staff, and made no purchases. Villanueva used the restroom
on frequent trips and for extended periods, including 1 hour and 17 minutes and just over
2 hours on consecutive days. Holiday barred Villanueva from returning to the store.
Villanueva sued Holiday for intrusion upon seclusion, defamation per se, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. The district court granted summary
judgment against Villanueva, reasoning that he did not provide evidence to show that the
bathroom intrusion was highly offensive, that the challenged statements conveyed
3 defamatory meaning, or that Holiday’s conduct caused severe emotional distress. The
district court also held that Villanueva’s claim for retaliation arising from a business-
consumer relationship was not a recognized cause of action.
Villanueva appeals.
DECISION
Villanueva appeals from the district court’s summary-judgment decision. Summary
judgment is appropriate when no genuine factual issue prevents judgment as a matter of
law. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. We
review Villanueva’s appeal de novo to determine whether factual issues exist and whether
the district court erred in applying the law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; Fenrich v. Blake Sch.,
920 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2018). Villanueva contends that summary judgment is not
appropriate on his claims of intrusion upon seclusion and defamation. He does not
challenge the summary-judgment decision as to intentional infliction of emotional distress
or attempt to explain how the district court erred by dismissing his retaliation claim. We
therefore address only the intrusion and defamation claims.
I
Villanueva fails to convince us that he can avoid summary judgment on his claim
of intrusion upon seclusion. A plaintiff can prevail on an invasion-of-privacy claim under
that theory only if he establishes three elements: an intentional intrusion occurred; the
intrusion was highly offensive; and the intrusion implicated a matter concerning the
plaintiff’s legitimate expectation of privacy. Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d
231, 233 (Minn. 1998); Swarthout v. Mut. Serv. Life Ins. Co., 632 N.W.2d 741, 744–45
4 (Minn. App. 2001). Whether an intrusion was intentional and highly offensive are
questions of law when the undisputed facts support only one reasonable conclusion. Lake,
582 N.W.2d at 233; Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745. Villanueva relies on the affidavits he
submitted to show that the employee who tried to enter the restroom knew that he was
inside it. But his intrusion claim fails even if the employee knew he was inside because the
undisputed facts establish that no intrusion occurred. Villanueva’s forcefully shutting the
door after it was opened only “an inch or so” prevented any invasion of his privacy. The
district court correctly dismissed the claim.
II
Villanueva’s defamation per se claim fares no better. The claim depends on
Villanueva’s ability to prove each element of defamation, meaning that he must offer
evidence that the challenged statements were false, tended to harm his reputation in the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0656
Robert E. Villanueva, Appellant,
vs.
Circle K Stores Inc., et al., Respondents.
Filed November 24, 2025 Affirmed; motion denied Ross, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-24-10809
Robert Eliazar Villanueva, Minneapolis, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)
Stephanie N. Maser, David P. Peterson, Cousineau Malone, P.A., Minnetonka, Minnesota (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Bond, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Robert Villanueva lingered inside a convenience store’s retail area and its restroom
for hours before store staff finally questioned whether he was using drugs and ordered him
to leave. Villanueva sued the store, alleging intrusion upon seclusion (a cleaning employee
attempted to enter a restroom that Villanueva occupied), defamation per se, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. The district court dismissed all claims on summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed facts supported none of them. Because
the undisputed facts establish that the store is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we
affirm.
FACTS
This case involves interactions between a convenience store’s employees and store
visitor, appellant Robert Villanueva. Because the district court granted summary judgment
against Villanueva, we view the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to his appeal.
See Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370, 374–75 (Minn. 2019); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.
Respondents Circle K Stores Inc. and Holiday Station Stores LLC (together, Holiday)
operate a gas station and convenience store in southwest Minneapolis. At that store,
Holiday offers on-site single-toilet restrooms for its customers. The restroom doors are
outside the building and kept locked, so customers access the restroom only after retrieving
the key from inside. Holiday employees monitor and clean the restrooms.
Near the end of August 2023, Villanueva frequented the Holiday store, conversed
with staff, and used its restroom. This case concerns incidents on three days during that
period.
On August 25, a Holiday employee approached the men’s restroom to clean it. She
knocked on the door and announced her intent to enter. She heard no response, but
Villanueva was inside. She unlocked the door and tried to push it open. It opened “an inch
or so” before Villanueva immediately slammed it shut. The employee did not see
Villanueva through the narrow opening.
2 On August 28, a Holiday manager left the retail area to check on Villanueva, whom
she knew was occupying the men’s restroom. She made a noise that Villanueva says
startled him. Villanueva reentered the store and confronted the manager at the cashier’s
counter. The manager was suspicious of Villanueva’s lengthy stays in the restroom and
asked, “Are you doing drugs?” A customer unidentified in the record maneuvered around
Villanueva to the counter, and the manager continued speaking with Villanueva, asking,
“[W]hat are [you] doing in there?” Villanueva remained and engaged with Holiday staff
for the next 40 minutes before eventually leaving.
On August 30, Villanueva loitered inside the store near the counter until a Holiday
employee approached him and said, “[Y]ou gave drugs to a minor.” This employee was
the older sibling of the employee who had tried to enter and clean the restroom on August
25. The younger sibling had reported to her brother that Villanueva had tried to give her
drugs in the store. Villanueva complained about the exchange to Holiday management and
obtained witness affidavits about the encounter from two other Holiday employees.
Holiday staff reviewed the surveillance footage and determined that Villanueva loitered in
the store for hours, distracted staff, and made no purchases. Villanueva used the restroom
on frequent trips and for extended periods, including 1 hour and 17 minutes and just over
2 hours on consecutive days. Holiday barred Villanueva from returning to the store.
Villanueva sued Holiday for intrusion upon seclusion, defamation per se, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. The district court granted summary
judgment against Villanueva, reasoning that he did not provide evidence to show that the
bathroom intrusion was highly offensive, that the challenged statements conveyed
3 defamatory meaning, or that Holiday’s conduct caused severe emotional distress. The
district court also held that Villanueva’s claim for retaliation arising from a business-
consumer relationship was not a recognized cause of action.
Villanueva appeals.
DECISION
Villanueva appeals from the district court’s summary-judgment decision. Summary
judgment is appropriate when no genuine factual issue prevents judgment as a matter of
law. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. We
review Villanueva’s appeal de novo to determine whether factual issues exist and whether
the district court erred in applying the law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; Fenrich v. Blake Sch.,
920 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2018). Villanueva contends that summary judgment is not
appropriate on his claims of intrusion upon seclusion and defamation. He does not
challenge the summary-judgment decision as to intentional infliction of emotional distress
or attempt to explain how the district court erred by dismissing his retaliation claim. We
therefore address only the intrusion and defamation claims.
I
Villanueva fails to convince us that he can avoid summary judgment on his claim
of intrusion upon seclusion. A plaintiff can prevail on an invasion-of-privacy claim under
that theory only if he establishes three elements: an intentional intrusion occurred; the
intrusion was highly offensive; and the intrusion implicated a matter concerning the
plaintiff’s legitimate expectation of privacy. Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d
231, 233 (Minn. 1998); Swarthout v. Mut. Serv. Life Ins. Co., 632 N.W.2d 741, 744–45
4 (Minn. App. 2001). Whether an intrusion was intentional and highly offensive are
questions of law when the undisputed facts support only one reasonable conclusion. Lake,
582 N.W.2d at 233; Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745. Villanueva relies on the affidavits he
submitted to show that the employee who tried to enter the restroom knew that he was
inside it. But his intrusion claim fails even if the employee knew he was inside because the
undisputed facts establish that no intrusion occurred. Villanueva’s forcefully shutting the
door after it was opened only “an inch or so” prevented any invasion of his privacy. The
district court correctly dismissed the claim.
II
Villanueva’s defamation per se claim fares no better. The claim depends on
Villanueva’s ability to prove each element of defamation, meaning that he must offer
evidence that the challenged statements were false, tended to harm his reputation in the
community, were communicated to another, and were reasonably understood to refer to
him. See McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 729–30 (Minn. 2013). The manager’s
questions at the counter (“Are you doing drugs?” “[W]hat are [you] doing in there?”) do
not constitute defamation because they are not false statements of fact. The manager, facing
Villanueva’s unusually lengthy and repeated occupation of the restroom, reasonably
questioned why. Her suggestion of one reason—drug use—does not convert her inquiry
into a statement of fact. The inquiry is not defamation.
The employee’s assertion, “[Y]ou gave drugs to a minor,” is not defamation for a
different reason. Statements that are not false fail the principal element of a defamation
suit: falsity. The burden to prove each element, including falsity, rests on the plaintiff. Id.
5 at 730. The converse of this burden also applies, making truth a complete defense to alleged
defamation. Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. 1980).
Holiday supported its summary-judgment motion with an affidavit from the younger
employee asserting that Villanueva had given that employee drugs. The record includes no
contrary evidence—not even testimony from Villanueva—contesting the employee’s
factual assertion. Because no evidence contradicts the truth of the older employee’s
statement that Villanueva gave drugs to a minor, no fact dispute exists to prevent summary
judgment favoring Holiday on this aspect of the defamation claim.
III
We need not address Villanueva’s other arguments on their merits. He contends that
the district court erroneously failed to fashion a jury instruction directing an adverse
inference on Holiday’s purported spoliation of evidence. Our decision affirming summary
judgment ends the possibility of a jury trial and renders moot any issue about jury
instructions. He also assigns error to the district court’s refusal to grant his request for leave
to move to reconsider the court’s summary-judgment decision. But the denial of a request
to allow a motion to reconsider is not appealable. Baker v. Amtrak Nat’l R.R. Passenger
Corp., 588 N.W.2d 749, 755 (Minn. App. 1999). We therefore need not consider the
argument further.
Villanueva also filed a motion asking us to take judicial notice of a wrongful-
termination action against one of the respondents filed in federal district court. The rules
of evidence allow us to take judicial notice of generally known adjudicative facts meeting
certain requirements. Minn. R. Evid. 201 (a)–(b). We deny the motion as requesting that
6 we take notice of facts that fall outside the rule’s parameters and that are, in any event,
irrelevant to our decision even if we were to take judicial notice of them.
Affirmed; motion denied.