Appellants argue that their failure to publish notice of their claim within 21 days after commencing the action did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over the claim. The language in Minn. Stat. 2, shows that published notice of the action within the 21-day time limit is mandatory. Because appellants failed to comply with this requirement, they did not properly commence their action and the district court had no jurisdiction over the matter. Lakeville v. Tollefson Dev.
Appellants claim they substantially complied with the notice provision.
MEPA Appellants finally argue that the district court erred in determining their MEPA action was untimely. Thus, the district court had no jurisdiction under Minn. Stat. 10, to hear appellants' MEPA claim. Appellants argue that their MEPA action was timely because they brought an amended complaint within 30 days after the Board's EIS decision. But appellants moved to amend their complaint after the county had served its answer.