its jurisdiction in granting partial summary judgment where the Class failed to join indispensable parties, including the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser. This argument is not properly raised in a petition for writ of prohibition, as the alleged failure to join an indispensable party is ordinarily not an error which deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. See City of Miami v. Vill. of Key Biscayne, 199 So.3d 300, 302 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (noting "that rule 1.140(h) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure suggests that a party's failure to join an indispensable party is more akin to a failure to state a cause of action than to a depriving of the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.”). See also Snipes v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 19 So.3d 1178 (Fla, 4th DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140 (h)(2) (providing: "The
holding that a judge who convicted defendant for contempt an act within the courts jurisdiction but without the affidavit required by statute to confer jurisdiction over the offense charged was still entitled to immunity his act was merely in excess of his jurisdiction holding prohibition lies to prevent a lower tribunal from acting in excess of its jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only precludes the relitigation of the issue of whether the first tribunal had jurisdiction holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction