Mangano v. American Radiator & Standard San. Corp., 19171-19174.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 19171-19174.,19171-19174.
• Citation: 438 F.2d 1187
• Parties: 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., Borg-Warner 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.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

438 F.2d 1187 (1971)

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., Borg-Warner 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 January 25, 1971.

Decided February 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:

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).

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.

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...