The petition is dismissed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. v. San Perdido Assn, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344, 355-56 (Fla. 2012):
There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law is not yet settled. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000) (“Unfortunately, there is no Florida case squarely discussing [this legal question]. Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979, 982–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))). We would improperly expand certiorari jurisdiction by applying it to all cases where a party asserts only that the trial court erred regarding an issue of statutory interpretation without regard to the higher threshold of whether the ruling departed from the essential requirements of law.
See also In re Assignment for Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, 314 So. 3d 604, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
PER CURIAM.