Hey, this is an English text. I want you to translate it into the Tunisian dialect. Please follow these steps:
1. Translate step by step and highlight differences between Tunisian dialect and Modern Standard Arabic.
2. Highlight sections you are confident translating into the Tunisian dialect.
Translate this text into the Tunisian dialect, focusing on capturing the essence of the language nuances:

568 N.W.2d 860 (1997) Patrick McCLELLAN, Respondent, v. H.L. "Red" GOLDBERG, et al., Appellants. No. C6-97-433. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. September 2, 1997. *861 Brendan W. Randall, Daniel J. Connolly, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, for appellants. Patrick McClellan, Bloomington, pro se. Considered and decided by HUSPENI, P.J., and KALITOWSKI and AMUNDSON, JJ. *862 OPINION HUSPENI, Judge. The district court denied appellants' motion to vacate a conciliation court judgment and to remove the case to district court. Because we hold that appellants' untimeliness in filing the motion did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, we reverse and remand for a determination of whether the untimeliness was excusable neglect. FACTS Following a hearing, the conciliation court awarded judgment against appellants H.L. Goldberg, et al. The notice of judgment, mailed on November 18, 1996, informed the parties that the last date for filing a demand for removal of the case to district court was December 11, 1996. Appellants' demand for removal arrived at conciliation court on December 12, 1996. Apparently, confusion between counsel for appellants and his support staff was responsible for untimely arrival of the papers. Appellants then moved the district court for an order vacating the conciliation court judgment and permitting a late removal to district court. In denying the motion the district court stated: In appeals from district court, probate court and agency decisions, courts have denied appeals filed after the time period designated by rule or statute on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdictional time periods are absolute and cannot be extended by discretion of the court under Rule 60.02. * * * The [appellants] incorrectly rely on Percy v. Hof[i]us to contend that this court has jurisdiction. * * * Although the plaintiff in Percy won by default judgment, the [appellants] contend that the holding applies to contested cases based on Mattsen v. Packman * * *. However, * * * the Mattsen court did not specify that Conciliation Court cases which are contested could be re-opened under Rule 60.02. The language is too general to be determinative on this issue. * * * Even if the Court determined that Rule 60.02 does apply, [appellants] would still not prevail * * *. [U]ntimeliness alone does not constitute excusable neglect. * * * [Appellants'] counsel explained to the court that he missed the deadline because he filed via U.S. mail instead of having the papers delivered the day they were due. Although unfortunate for the [appellants], this is not excusable neglect. (Citations omitted.) ISSUE Does the late filing of a demand for removal of a case from conciliation court to district court deprive the district court of jurisdiction? ANALYSIS Whether the district court erred in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over vacating the judgment is a question of law upon which this court may exercise its independent judgment. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn.1989). The district court based its holding that it had no jurisdiction on the conclusion that