Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): no. 11-20057(25), filed in the 17th Judicial.Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. See DeGregorio v. Balkwill, 853 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2003); Hernandez v. Kissimmee Police Dep’t, 901 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Alvarez v. City of Plantation, 824 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); cf. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. State Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378, 1390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (noting statute seemingly mandatory in terms because of the use of the word “shall,” is designed simply to further the orderly conduct of business, and the provision is generally deemed directory only). Salter and Fernandez, Associate Judges, concur. 1 . We treat the petition for writ of prohibition as a petition for writ of certiorari, 2 . See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when the federal character of a removed case is eliminated the court has discretion to retain jurisdiction to remand or to dismiss (B) holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case (C) holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court (D) holding voluntary dismissal permissible because trial court had not yet reached a decision on the merits (E) holding an appellate court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction to render a decision on the merits of a case notwithstanding the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal
Output (English): holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court