With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. We DENY the petition for writ of cer-tiorari on the merits to the extent that petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in dissolving a notice of lis pendens. We DISMISS the petition to the extent that petitioner argues that the trial court erred in denying its request to amend its complaint as to certain counts. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Venus Labs., Inc. v. Katz, 573 So.2d

A: holding that in considering common law certiorari district courts of appeal should be primarily concerned with seriousness of error not mere existence of error and should exercise certiorari discretion only when there has been violation of clearly established principles of law resulting in miscarriage of justice
B: holding that circuit court violated the essential requirements of the law in not issuing an order to show cause after receiving a facially sufficient petition for writ of certiorari
C: holding that a petition for writ of certiorari should be dismissed if there has been an insufficient showing of irreparable harm and should be denied when it is determined that an order did not depart from the essential requirements of law
D: holding that for a nonfinal order to be reviewable by petition for certiorari the order must depart from the essential requirements of law thus causing material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal
C.