Join our mailing list to receive the latest updates and alerts Flag Subscribe

Originally published in the December 2024 issue of Bench & Bar of Minnesota Environmental Law Update, Minnesota State Bar Association.

On August 12, 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s entry for dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with statutory service and publication requirements under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA). Schmidt v. City of Orono, No. A24-0089, 2024 WL 3755957, (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2024).

MERA is a state law that aims to protect Minnesota's natural resources. Under MERA, citizens may bring suits for declaratory or equitable relief in the district court, in the name of the state of Minnesota, against any person for the protection of the air, water, land, or other natural resources located within the state. Actions brought under MERA must comply with statutory procedural requirements, In addition to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P.), which govern civil procedure in the district courts, actions brought under MERA must comply with statutory procedural requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes (Minn. Stat.) Chapter 116B. Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01 provides that a civil action is commenced against each defendant when the summons is served upon that defendant. Under Minn. Stat. § 116B.03, subd. 2, citizens asserting MERA claims must (1) serve the summons and complaints upon the Attorney General (AG) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) within seven days of commencing a MERA action in district court; and (2) publish notice of the MERA action in a local legal newspaper within 21 days of commencing a MERA action in district court.

On June 18, 2021, the plaintiff (Schmidt) filed a complaint against the City of Orono (City) alleging that construction of a mountain bike trail violated MERA. Schmidt sought to enjoin the mountain bike trail project from continuing and requested that the district court order the City to initiate the process for environmental review and, if warranted, to seek to have prepared an environmental impact statement related to the environmental impact of the proposed project on the location and its natural resources. On October 5, 2023, the City moved to dismiss, alleging that, under MERA, Schmidt failed to comply with the statutory service and notice requirements under Minn. Stat. § 116B.03, subd. 2, which deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the MERA claim. The district court agreed with the City and granted the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

While Schmidt did not challenge the district court’s dismissal for defective service and a resultant lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Schmidt asserts that dismissal should have been without prejudice. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with Schmidt, stating that because there had been no adjudication on the merits, the dismissal should have been without prejudice. In its August 12, 2024 Order, the Minnesota Court of Appeals emphasized that “when a party is dismissed for ineffective service of process, the proper action is for the court to dismiss the party without prejudice” (internal citations omitted).

Jump to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.