Philip Ayeni, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1291

Philip Ayeni,
Appellant,

vs.

Life Time Group Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,

Ultimate Hoops, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

Filed April 13, 2026
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge*

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-25-886

Lee A. Hutton, III, The Hutton Firm, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Sheila T. Kerwin, Kelly P. Magnus, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for respondents)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JESSON, Judge
Appellant Phillip Ayeni was working as a referee at respondent Life Time Group
Holdings, Inc. (Life Time) when he was attacked by three Life Time members who slapped,
punched, and pushed him to the floor. Ayeni sued Life Time in district court and Life Time
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court
granted Life Time’s motion to dismiss. Because Ayeni’s exclusive remedy is provided by
the Workers’ Compensation Act, we affirm.
FACTS
Because this appeal stems from the grant of a motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ.
P. 12.02, the following facts are derived from the complaint and presumed to be
true. Forslund v. State, 924 N.W.2d 25, 32 (Minn. App. 2019). In May 2024, Ayeni was
employed by Life Time and working at its fitness club in Bloomington. As part of his job
duties, Ayeni acted as a basketball referee to officiate games and interact with club
members. While refereeing a game, Ayeni saw three members exhibiting poor
sportsmanship including unnecessary pushing and shoving. These members had
previously been suspended by Life Time for violent behavior, but management had
recently reinstated their memberships. One of these members was standing on the sideline
when Ayeni called a foul on the court. Disagreeing with the call, the member crossed the
court to confront Ayeni. Ayeni walked away but was followed by the member who
screamed, cursed, and ultimately slapped Ayeni in the face. Another Life Time referee
attempted to deescalate the conflict, but the situation became chaotic. A second member
3
approached the group and punched Ayeni, causing him to fall to the floor. Ayeni stood up
but was punched by a third member. Ayeni fell again, and was kicked, punched and pushed
by all three members. After the assault, Ayeni was treated at the hospital for facial bruises,
lacerations, and a concussion.
In February 2025, Ayeni sued Life Time alleging assault, battery, negligent
retention, negligent supervision, and gross negligence. He sought damages in excess of
$50,000. Life Time filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a) and
(e). The district court granted Life Time’s motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P.
12.02(a), concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Ayeni’s exclusive
remedy was provided by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Ayeni appeals.
DECISION
The district court must dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08(c). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the district court
must accept the alleged facts as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. Brenny v. Board of Regents, 813 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Minn. App. 2012).
Dismissal is permitted “only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be
introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief
demanded.” Id. (quotation omitted) (applying this standard of review to a dismissal under
Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a)). Whether a district court has subject- matter jurisdiction is a
legal question we review de novo. Stengel v. East Side Beverage, 690 N.W.2d 380, 383
(Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Feb. 23, 2005).
4
This appeal centers on the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). Under the Act,
employers are required to “pay compensation in every case of personal injury . . . arising
out of and in the course of employment,” regardless of who is at fault.
Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1 (2024). Th is remedy is exclusive, meaning that an
employee may not pursue common-law claims against his employer to recover for damages
when the injury is covered by the Act. See Minn. Stat. § 176.031 (2024). This exclusivity
“is part of the quid pro quo of the workers’ compensation scheme” in which employers
assume liability for all workplace injuries in exchange for relief from certain kinds of action
and the prospect of large damage verdicts. Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc., 684
N.W.2d 434, 439 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted). Consequently, a district courts lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims arising from a workplace injury unless the
employee can show that the injury falls within an exception to the Act. Stengel, 690
N.W.2d at 383; see also McGowan v. Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830,
833 (Minn. 1995). Here, the district court concluded that the Act provided Ayeni’s
exclusive remedy and dismissed his claims for lack of subject -matter jurisdiction. Ayeni
claims this was error, arguing that his injury falls within two exceptions to the Act. We
address each in turn.
Assault Exception
Through an exception known as the “assault exception,” the Act does not cover
“injuries caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the
employee because of personal reasons.” Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16 (2024);
Meintsma, 684 N.W.2d at 439 (quotation omitted). Under this exception, the Act does not
5
apply when “the assailant was motivated by personal animosity toward his victim, arising
from circumstances wholly unconnected with the employment.” McGowan, 527 N.W.2d
at 834. The assault exception is “narrowly construed,” Meintsma, 684 N.W.2d at 439, and
will not apply even when one’s employment is a “causal factor contributing to” the assault,
McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 834. Ayeni contends that his injury falls under this exception
because the members may have been motivated by personal animosity towards him.
We begin our de novo review of this issue with an examination of McGowan. In
McGowan, a director of a homeless shelter was raped in her office by one of the shelter’s
clients. 527 N.W.2d at 831. She sued her employer for negligence in district court and the
employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that her claims were barred by the Act.
Id. The court concluded that because the motivation of the assailant was unknown, there
was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the assault exception applied. Id. The
supreme court reversed. Id. at 834. In doing so, the court reasoned that even if the
assailant’s motive was personal, it was “equally clear that [the director’s] employment was
a causal factor contributing to her being raped.” Id. The court considered that the director
did not have any contact with her assailant outside of the workplace and that she was
assaulted during work hours, in her office, “while she was directly engaged in the
performance of her work duties.” Id. Because the supreme court could not say that the
assault “arose from circumstances unrelated to [the director’s] employment,” the assault
exception did not apply. Id.
We conclude that, similarly, Ayeni’s employment was a causal factor contributing
to the assault here. Like the circumstances in McGowan, there is no allegation that Ayeni
6
had any contact with his attackers outside of Life Time, and Ayeni concedes that the assault
took place during work hours, at his workplace, while he was engaged in his job duties.
Further, Ayeni acknowledges that the assault was directly related to his employment, as he
describes the attack as an “aggressive response to a foul call.” Given these facts, we cannot
conclude that the assault was solely motivated by circumstances “wholly unconnected” to
Ayeni’s employment. Id. Thus, the assault exception does not apply.
Nonetheless, Ayeni argues that he is entitled to discovery to explore whether the
assault was motivated purely by personal animosity. We are not persuaded. As an initial
matter, we observe that Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08(c) mandates that “[w]henever it appears by
suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,
the court shall dismiss the action.” Ayeni fails to articulate any legal authority, and we are
aware of none, that a party is entitled to discovery to establish subject-matter jurisdiction
even after jurisdictional defects become apparent.
Even so, while it is true that when considering a motion to dismiss, we construe
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, we also review whether there are any facts
“consistent with the pleading[s]” that could provide relief. Brenny, 813 N.W.2d at 420.
We see none here. Significantly, we observe that Ayeni’s complaint alleges: “During the
game, [Ayeni] called a foul committed in the court. Members did not agree with the call
and decided to assault [Ayeni].” The complaint continues that after the assault, one
member shouted that “everything would have been different if [Ayeni] had not called the
foul.” Given that Ayeni did not allege that the members attacked him out of personal
7
animosity and we discern no set of facts consistent with the allegations in his complaint
that would establish this animosity, the assault exception does not apply. See id.
Intentional-injury Exception
The Act also recognizes an exception for an employer’s intentional injuries.
Meintsma, 684 N.W.2d at 439. To trigger this exception, the employee must establish that
“the employer harbored a conscious and deliberate intent to injure him.” Id. at 440;
see also Hildebrandt v. Whirlpool Corp., 364 N.W.2d 394, 395 (Minn. 1985) (stating that
“an employer who intentionally and maliciously assaulted an employee, while engaged in
employment, could be sued at common law despite the availability of workers’
compensation”). But a conscious and deliberate intent to injure cannot be inferred from an
employer’s negligence. Meintsma, 684 N.W.2d at 440.
Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewed in the light most
favorable to Ayeni, we conclude that Life Time did not harbor a deliberate intent to injure
Ayeni. First, it is undisputed that Ayeni was not assaulted by any Life Time employee or
its management. Next, while we assume that Life Time was aware of the members’ prior
violent behavior but “failed to act in a way to adequately prevent the occurrence of violent
incidents within its premises,” as Ayeni alleges, this is not sufficient to trigger the
exception. This is because an “employer’s knowledge of even a substantial certainty of
injury to an employee does not demonstrate a conscious and deliberate intent to inflict
injury.” Id. (quotation omitted). As discussed in Meintsma, where even assuming that an
employer was aware of and could have prevented the employee’s injury, this “inaction is
insufficient to satisfy the intentional injury exception.” Id. Given that there is no allegation
8
that Life Time reinstated the members with the deliberate and conscious intent to injure
Ayeni, the intentional-injury exception does not apply.
Ayeni again asserts that he is entitled to discovery, arguing that it could reveal
whether there is evidence of Life Time’s deliberate intent to injure him. 1 Beyond our
earlier observation concerning the mandatory nature of Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08(c), we
observe that Ayeni’s complaint did not allege that Life Time acted with a deliberate intent
to injure him. Rather, his complaint alleged that Life Time knew that the members “could
engage in injurious conduct towards others,” and that Life Time “failed to take reasonable
actions to mitigate this risk.” But as discussed, an employer’s inaction to prevent even a
substantial certainty of injury is not sufficient to trigger the exception. See id. Therefore,
there is no set of facts, consistent with Ayeni’s complaint, that would provide relief under
the intentional-injury exception. See Brenny, 813 N.W.2d at 420.

1 Notwithstanding this argument, Ayeni asserts that claims of negligent supervision and
negligent retention are not precluded by the Act. But Ayeni fails to address the exclusivity
of the Act, which prohibits common-law claims against one’s employer unless the
employee can establish that the alleged injury is not compensable by the Act.
See Minn. Stat. §§ 176.011, subd. 16, .031. Therefore, negligent-retention and negligent-
supervision claims are equally precluded by the Act unless Ayeni can prove that his injury
falls within an exception. See Meintsma, 684 N.W.2d at 437 (discussing that when an
employee sued for assault, battery, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent
retention in the district court, the employee must prove that the injury giving rise to these
claims fell outside the coverage of the Act).
9
In sum, because we conclude that Ayeni’s exclusive remedy is provided by the Act,
the district court did not err in dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a).2
Affirmed.

2 The parties also dispute whether Ayeni’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Because we conclude that the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Ayeni’s claims, we need not address this
argument.