Recognizing that there are policy reasons that necessitate the immediate appellate review of certain non-final orders, Congress has provided for interlocutory review of three specific types of case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), the courts of appeals are granted jurisdiction over: (1) Interlocutory orders . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court; (2) Interlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing to wind up receiverships
or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property; (3) Interlocutory decrees . .. determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). Section 1292(a) is used most frequently in cases involving injunctions. For purposes of § 1292(a)(1), the Third Circuit has defined an "injunction" as an order directed to a party, enforceable by contempt, and designed to accord or protect, in more than a temporary fashion, some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint. Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, 14 F.3d 848, 854 (3d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 590 (3d Cir. 1992); Cohen v. Board of Trustees, 867 F.2d 1455, 1465 n.9 (3d Cir. 1989) (in banc); American Motorists Inc. v. LevelorLorentzen, Inc., 879 F.2d 1165, 1172 (3d Cir. 1989). Orders granting or refusing preliminary relief are only appealable if they are based on the merits of the case. See Rodgers v. U.S. Steel Corp., 541 F.2d 365, 373 (3d Cir. 1976); see also Hershey Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co., 945 F.2d 1272 (3d Cir. 1991) Th is sounds like you are appealing an interlocatory order and need a TRO/ injunction here to stop dismissal during appeal.