With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in rule 9.190 addresses concurrent jurisdiction, rule 9.600(a) applies in this case. Thus, the ALJ lacked jurisdiction to make the two corrections given that the record in Appellant’s appeal from the initial support order was filed prior to the ALJ’s ruling and given that no leave of this Court was requested and granted. We, therefore, quash the Order Denying Motion for Rehearing but Granting in Part Motion to Amend Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order and the Amended Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order. See 14302 Marina San Pablo Place SPE, LLC v. VCP-San Pablo, Ltd., 92 So.3d 320, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quashing the order on appeal where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order); Wilkinson v. Clarke, 91 So.3d 897, 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>). ORDERS QUASHED. LEWIS and MAKAR, JJ., concur;

A: holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction
B: holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity
C: holding that if service is inadequate defendant never submitted to courts jurisdiction and underlying judgment is therefore a nullity
D: holding that amended order which made more than clerical corrections was a nullity when it was entered after notice of appeal
B.