Robert GRASSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOWN OF ORANGE, Tim James, Kimberly Altschuler, Jeanne Consiglio, Joseph Marulli, David Pite, Kristen C. Powell, Ernie Robear, Ron Ruotolo, Larry Schwartz, Tony Vitti, Patricia P. Ziman, Alfred Pullo, Defendants-Appellants, 502 F. App'x 97

SUMMARY ORDER Defendants Board of Education of the Town of Orange and various individually named board members appeal from the grant of plaintiff Robert Grasson’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 60(

b) to vacate the award of

summary judgment against him on claims arising from his termination as a public school bus driver, due to his failure to file an opposition. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss the appeal. The parties do not dispute that the order reinstating the case is of a type normally barred from immediate appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (affording appellate jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts of the United States”); Transaero, Inc. v.

La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 99 F.3d 538, 541 (2d Cir.1996) (dismissing interlocutory appeal of denial of Rule 60(b)(4) motion); see also Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430, 105 S.Ct. 2757, 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985) (observing that “[i]m-mediate review of every trial court ruling ... would impose unreasonable disruption, delay, and expense” and “would also undermine the ability of district judges to supervise litigation”). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, “final decisions” are those that end litigation on the merits. See, e.g., Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v.

Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 275, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). Because “[t]he order at issue in this case has no such effect” and, indeed, “ensures that litigation will continue in the District Court,” it is not “final” and thus not ap-pealable under § 1291. Id. Defendants do not contend that a statutory exception to the “final decision” rule applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)-(b); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Rather, they submit that interlocutory appeal is authorized by Rinieri v.

News Syndicate Co., 385 F.2d 818 (2d Cir.1967), where we observed that “the law is settled that if the District Court assumes jurisdiction and power to act under [Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) ] where neither exists, an appeal will lie from its order vacating the original order.” Id. at 821; see also Thorp v. Scarne, 599 F.2d 1169, 1172 n. 2 (2d Cir.1979) (noting “line of cases upholding the appealability of district court orders granting relief from a final judgment, purportedly under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b), where the district court has improperly assumed jurisdiction and power to act”).

Rinieri, however, is a circumscribed holding not applicable in these circumstances. The Rinieri plaintiff sought to have his libel action “reinstated almost two and a half years after it was ordered dismissed for lack of prosecution.” 385 F.2d at 819. On appeal from the grant of reinstatement, we noted that (1) the motion could not have been granted pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) because it was brought “more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1); and (2) the grounds for relief did not bring the motion “within the extremely meagre scope ... of Rule 60(b)(6),” Rinieri v.

News Syndicate Co., 385 F.2d at 822 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, because the district court had “acted without any basis in law, disregarding the limitations” in Rule 60(

b) entirely, we concluded that it “lacked jurisdiction to act and th[e] order [wa]s appealable.” Id. (holding question of jurisdiction “necessarily included” in merits of appeal). Here, there is no question that “the trial court had the power under Rule 60(b)[ ] to grant the relief requested” by plaintiff. Cavalliotis v. Salomon, 357 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1966) (emphasis added) (dismissing interlocutory appeal from grant of motion that facially qualified for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)). Plaintiff moved to vacate the award of

summary judgment within four months of its issuance, bringing the motion within the one-year time limit applicable to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) (allowing relief from judgment based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”). While defendants contend that the district court “made factual findings that precluded it from granting the motion to vacate,” Appellants’ Reply Br. 4, these findings, at best, bear upon the propriety of awarding relief, and not the court’s authority to do so. Thus, even if the court’s characterization of plaintiffs counsel’s failure to oppose

summary judgment as “inexcusable,” “unacceptable,” and “indefensible,” Ruling on Mot. To Vacate, Grasson v. Bd. of Educ., 09-cv-1584 (D.Conn. Nov. 21, 2011), ECF No. 73, and of counsel’s arguments in support of the ensuing motion as “implausible,” id., might suggest an abuse of discretion in granting the motion, see generally Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.

P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 387, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (discussing concept of “excusable neglect” within context of “party’s failure to comply with a court-ordered filing deadline”), such circumstances are not enough under Rinieri to afford us jurisdiction to review the matter at this time. If necessary, defendants’ challenge to the Rule 60(

b) vacatur, along with their asserted right to a judgment against plaintiff, “may be effectively vindicated following final judgment.” Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 99 F.3d at 541. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . See generally Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488, 491-92 (3d Cir.1975).