that appellate courts could extend such jurisdiction if the rulings were ‘inextricably intertwined.’ ” Watkins v. City of Oakland, Cal., 145 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Swint, 514 U.S. at 51, 115 S.Ct. 1203). Thus, “the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction ... allows a court of appeals ‘to review an otherwise unappealable interlocutory order if it is inextricably intertwined with an appealable one.’ ” Montano v. City of Chicago, 375 F.3d 593, 599 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Jones v. Info-Cure, Corp., 310 F.3d 529, 536 (7th Cir. 2002)). To establish pendent appellate jurisdiction, however, Officer Duplain must first establish at least one appealable order, because without an underlying “appealable” order, there can be nothing pendent. See Montano, 375 F.3d at 599 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added).
holding that pendent jurisdiction allows review of an unappealable order if it is inextricably intertwined with an appealable one  holding that there can be only one final appealable order holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter recognizing that substance abuse and emotional disturbance need not be inextricably intertwined