would be violated by the FAA pursuing its administrative procedure. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court held that the mechanics’ constitutional arguments were “inescapably intertwined” with the merits of an FAA order. Id. at 1263 (“The mechanics’ constitutional claims (that the FAA has infringed upon their due process rights by failing to observe statutory and administrative processes) necessarily require a review of the procedures and actions taken by the FAA with regard to the mechanics’ certificates. Therefore, the constitutional claims fall within the ambit of the administrative scheme, and the district court is without subject-matter jurisdiction.”); see also Green v. Brantley, 981 F.2d 514, 521 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The Eleventh Circuit therefore held that
recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court 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 holding that the circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the merits of plaintiffs claims are inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the faas order holding that the plaintiffs claims arose from a certain contract because the subject matter of the plaintiffs suit was intertwined with requirements referred to in the contract holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case