1

12-112-cv(L) 

RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA Inc. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. 

CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS 

PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE 

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A 

SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST 

CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH 

THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

4th day of March, two thousand thirteen. 

Present: 

 ROBERT D. SACK, 

 PETER W. HALL, 

 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

 Circuit Judges.

____________________________________________________ 

RBC NICE BEARINGS, INC., ROLLER BEARINGS CO. OF 

AMERICA, INC., RBC NICE BEARINGS INC., d/b/a NICE 

BALL BEARINGS INC., 

 Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, 

 v. 12-112-cv(L); 

 12-115-cv(XAP) 

SKF USA INC., 

 Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. 

____________________________________________________ 

FOR APPELLANT: MATTHEW D. JANSSEN (David Richman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, 

Philadelphia, PA, and Robert B. Flynn, O’Connell, Attmore & 

Morris, LLC, Hartford, CT, on the brief), Pepper Hamilton LLP, 

Philadelphia, PA. 
 2

 

FOR APPELLEES: MATTHEW BROWN (Joseph W. Martini and Jeffrey R. Babbin, on 

the brief), Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT.

____________________________________________________ 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Connecticut (Hall, J.). 

 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Plaintiffs-counter-defendants RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. and related parties (collectively, 

“RBC”), and defendant-counter-claimant SKF USA Inc. (“SKF”) each appeal from an Order of 

the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Hall, J.) entered on December 9, 

2011, denying each party’s Bill of Costs filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), which 

provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—

other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The district court found 

that because its judgment dismissing RBC’s claims and SKF’s counterclaims did not “materially 

alter[] the legal relationship between the parties,” RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA Inc., No. 

3:06-cv-1880, 2011 WL 6140919, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 9, 2011) (internal quotation marks 

omitted), neither party was a prevailing party within the meaning of Rule 54(d)(1). The court 

therefore declined to award costs to either party. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

facts and procedural history of this case. 

 In denying costs, the district court relied in substance on its determination, which the 

parties vigorously contest, that neither party was a prevailing party. Whether a party is a 

“prevailing party” within the meaning of Rule 54(d) is a question of law, which we review de 

novo. Dattner v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 458 F.3d 98, 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We need 
 3

not resolve this issue, however, because the district court was well within its discretion in 

declining to award costs to either party. 

It is well-settled that we are free to affirm the judgment below “on any ground for which 

there is support in the record, even if not adopted by the district court.” Adirondack Transit 

Lines, Inc. v. United Transp. Union, Local 1582, 305 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2002). The decision 

whether to award costs under Rule 54(d) “is committed to the sound discretion of the district 

court, and is accordingly reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ARP Films, Inc. v. Marvel Entm’t 

Grp., Inc., 952 F.2d 643, 651 (2d Cir. 1991). Even assuming arguendo that the district court 

erred in finding that neither party was a prevailing party, neither party has offered any ground for 

us to conclude that the district court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in refusing to award 

costs to either one. See Srybnik v. Epstein, 230 F.2d 683, 686 (2d Cir. 1956) (“[W]here the 

defendant counter-claims for affirmative relief and neither party prevails on its claim, it is quite 

appropriate to deny costs to both parties . . . .”). 

 We have considered all of the parties’ remaining arguments and find them to be without 

merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Each party to bear its own costs on 

appeal. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk