Vincent A. Mangano v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., Kohler Co., Crane Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., Rheem Mfg. Co., Wallace-Murray Corp., Briggs Mfg. Co., Borgwarner Corp., Plumbing Fixtures Mfrs. Assoc. Edward S. Petros v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., Borg-Warner Corp., Crane Co., Kohler Co., Plumbing Fixture Mfg. Ass'n, Rheem Mfg. Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., & Wallace-Murray Corp. Vincent A. Mangano & M & M Builders, Inc., a Virginia Corp. v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., a Delaware Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Mfg. Corp., Briggs Mfg. Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing Fixture Mfrs. Ass'n. Vincent A. Mangano v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., a Delaware Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Mfg. Corp., Briggs Mfg. Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing Fixture Mfrs. Ass'n, 438 F.2d 1187 (3rd Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Vincent A. Mangano v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., Kohler Co., Crane Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., Rheem Mfg. Co., Wallace-Murray Corp., Briggs Mfg. Co., Borgwarner Corp., Plumbing Fixtures Mfrs. Assoc. Edward S. Petros v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., Borg-Warner Corp., Crane Co., Kohler Co., Plumbing Fixture Mfg. Ass'n, Rheem Mfg. Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., & Wallace-Murray Corp. Vincent A. Mangano & M & M Builders, Inc., a Virginia Corp. v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., a Delaware Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Mfg. Corp., Briggs Mfg. Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing Fixture Mfrs. Ass'n. Vincent A. Mangano v. Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp., a Delaware Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Mfg. Corp., Briggs Mfg. Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing Fixture Mfrs. Ass'n, 438 F.2d 1187 (3rd Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 33 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: FOGE, MCKEEVER LLC v. ZOETIS INC. (pawd, 2024-09-04) · Strongest negative: Hyde v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (ncctapp, 1996-08-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Hyde v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: but see · confidence high
Ed. 2d 164 (1977); but see Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) FOGE, MCKEEVER LLC v. ZOETIS INC.
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187, 1188 (3d Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1983 · confidence medium
RUSCC 37(b); see Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 , 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2462 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980); Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187, 1188 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freedman v. Amalgamated Sugar Co. (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Pa. · 1976 · confidence medium
In affirming Judge Lord’s holding, the Third Circuit stated: In these circumstances, the district court was justified in concluding that these plaintiffs were faced with the “insuperable difficulty,” spoken of by the Supreme Court in the Hanover case, of demonstrating that any manufacturer’s overcharge was a causa sine qua non of any payment any of them had to make. 438 F.2d at 1188 (Emphasis added and supplied to first line.) This Court, of course, is aware of the rather lukewarm reception that has been accorded Mangano. 12 Nevertheless, little or no purpose would be accomplished if t…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Anthony Fox v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Manufacturing Co., supra; Mangano v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187, 1188 (3d Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited "see" Elsie A. Digregorio, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel S. Digregorio, Deceased v. First Rediscount Corporation (2×)
1st Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Boshes v. General Motors Corp.
N.D. Ill. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 50 F.R.D. 13 (E.D.Pa.1970), affirmed sub nom, Mangano v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (3d Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited "see" Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
unknown court · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mangano v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation, 50 F.R.D. 13 (E.D.Pa.1970), affirmed 438 F.2d 1187 (3rd Cir. 1971) , and Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator Standard Sanitary Corporation, 323 F.Supp. 381 (E.D.Pa.1970).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
SCOTUS · 1977 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F. 2d 1187 (CA3 1971), aff’g Philadelphia Housing Auth. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 50 F. R.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stern v. Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School for Deaconesses & Missionaries
D.D.C. · 1973 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (3rd Cir. 1971), and Donson Stores, Inc. v. American Bakeries Co., 58 F.R.D. 481 (S.D.N.Y.1973), with In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 1973 Trade Cases ¶ 74,680 (D.Conn.1973), and Boshes v. General Motors Corp., 59 F.R.D. 589 (N.D.Ill.1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincent A. Mangano
v.
American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., Kohler Co., Crane Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., Rheem Manufacturing Co., Wallace-Murray Corp., Briggs Manufacturing Co., Borgwarner Corp., Plumbing Fixtures Manufacturers Assoc. Edward S. Petros v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., Borg-Warner Corp., Crane Co., Kohler Co., Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing Association, Rheem Manufacturing Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., and Wallace-Murray Corp. Vincent A. Mangano and M & M Builders, Inc., a Virginia Corp. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., a Delaware Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Manufacturing Corp., Briggs Manufacturing Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing Fixture Manufacturers Association. Vincent A. Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., a Delaware Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Manufacturing Corp., Briggs Manufacturing Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing Fixture Manufacturers Association
19171-19174.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 18, 1971.
438 F.2d 1187
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

438 F.2d 1187

1971 Trade Cases P 73,477

Vincent A. MANGANO et al., Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORP., Kohler Co.,
Crane Co., Universal-Rundle Corp., Rheem Manufacturing Co.,
Wallace-Murray Corp., Briggs Manufacturing Co., BorgWarner
Corp., Plumbing Fixtures Manufacturers Assoc.
Edward S. PETROS, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORP., Borg-Warner
Corp., Crane Co., Kohler Co., Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
Association, Rheem Manufacturing Co., Universal-Rundle
Corp., and Wallace-Murray Corp.
Vincent A. MANGANO and M & M Builders, Inc., a Virginia
Corp., Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORP., a Delaware
Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois
Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Manufacturing Corp.,
Briggs Manufacturing Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing
Fixture Manufacturers Association.
Vincent A. MANGANO, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORP., a Delaware
Corp., Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corp., Crane Co., an Illinois
Corp., Universal Rundle Corp., Rheem Manufacturing Corp.,
Briggs Manufacturing Co., Borg-Warner Corp. & Plumbing
Fixture Manufacturers Association.

Nos. 19171-19174.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Jan. 25, 1971.
Decided Feb. 18, 1971.

Paul D. Scanlon, McLean, Va., for appellants.

Fred A. Freund, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City (Sullivan & Cromwell, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald, Kyle & Buerger, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., Arnstein, Gluck, Weitzenfeld & Minow, Chicago, Ill., Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

[*~1187]1

The four cases on appeal here are companions to a large number of civil actions for damages allegedly caused by a conspiracy to fix the prices of certain plumbing fixtures. All of these proceedings are being processed under 28 U.S.C. 1407 (Supp. V, 1970) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in the four cases are homeowners (No. 19, 171), commercial building owners (No. 19,172), home builders (No. 19,173), and apartment building owners (No. 19,174). Motions to dismiss were made in all four cases on the basis of plaintiffs' failure to file answers to interrogatories. Answers were required by orders to which the plaintiffs had consented. Time for answering had been extended. The district court indicated that, under the circumstances present here, the actions merited dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(iii) and 37(d) for failure to make responsive, and in some instances any, answers to proper interrogatories. But, in all but the home builders' case (where the defendants had not made an alternative argument), the court also invoked the sanction of Rule 37(b)(2)(ii) and made factual presumptions which, under the applicable substantive law, were found to provide an alternative ground for dismissal. Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, 50 F.R.D. 13 (E.D.Pa.1970), Order of April 6, 1970 (No. 19,171); Order of April 29, 1970 (Nos. 19,172, 19,174); Order of April 30, 1970 (No. 19, 173).

2

We will affirm the dismissals on the basis of the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion of April 6, 1970, upon which all three orders are predicated. In the circumstances of these cases, it was within the district court's sound discretion to dismiss the actions of the present appellants solely for inexcusable failure to answer interrogatories.

3

Although such a conclusion is sufficient to dispose of these appeals, we recognize that a decision on the substantive issues presented to us by the alternative holding may have value. The plumbing fixtures litigation is 'the most massive multidistrict litigation * * * being processed under Section 1407,' In re Plumbing Fixtures, Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1970, 311 F.Supp. 349, 350 n. 2. Present consideration of the alternative ground of decision may facilitate the conclusion of this litigation. Therefore, we have considered and affirm the district court's decision as based upon substantive law involved in the homeowners', commercial building owners', and apartment building owners' cases. More particularly, absent a showing by the plaintiffs that their purchases were made 'pursuant to a preexisting costplus contract or analogous fixed markup type of arrangement,' Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, supra, 50 F.R.D. at 19, it is appropriate, in light of Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 1968, 392 U.S. 481, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231, to dismiss those three cases.[1] Manufacturers' overcharges on the order of ten to twenty dollars for plumbing fixtures used in buildings selling at twenty to thirty thousand dollars are indicated. 50 F.R.D. at 26. The interrogatories gave the plaintiffs an opportunity, of which they could or would not take advantage, to show that these overcharges became components of the prices they paid. In these circumstances, the district court was justified in concluding that these plaintiffs were faced with the 'insuperable difficulty,' spoken of by the Supreme Court in the Hanover case, of demonstrating that any manufacturer's overcharge was a causa sine qua non of any payment any of them had to make. In addition, we agree with the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs involved here were not the first consumers in a chain of distribution.

[*~1188]4

The judgments will be affirmed.

1

Contrast Freedman v. Philadelphia Terminals Auction Co., 3d Cir. 1962, 301 F.2d 830, where the arrangement was analogous to a fixed markup