Opinion ID: 718359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Implied Indemnity

Text: 32 CDI finally contends that the district court erred in concluding that it had an implied duty to indemnify Wilhelm with respect to its settlement of the mechanic's liens taken out by K & F and Carlisle. Before turning to this issue, we note that, given our affirmance of the district court's dismissal of CDI's attempt to foreclose its mechanic's lien, CDI would not be entitled to attorney's fees, even if we found that the district court had erred in its decision on the indemnity claim. We also note that CDI prevailed in its claims for indemnification and breach of contract against Twichell (which was responsible for the filing of mechanic's liens by K & F and Carlisle), so that it has already recovered a judgment requiring Twichell to reimburse it for the cost of its indemnification of Wilhelm. 33 In any event, as the defendants point out, the issue of implied indemnity is not properly before this court. CDI failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(3) which requires that: 34 Unless the entire transcript is to be included, the appellant shall, within the 10-day time provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this Rule 10, file a statement of the issues the appellant intends to present on the appeal, and shall serve on the appellee a copy of the order or certificate and of the statement. An appellee who believes that a transcript of other parts of the proceedings is necessary shall, within 10 days after the service of the order or certificate and the statement of the appellant, file and serve on the appellant a designation of additional parts to be included. 35 Fed.R.App.Proc. 10(b)(3). 36 CDI's Statement of Issues on Appeal, Rec. Doc. 239, stated only its intent to challenge the district court's summary judgment decisions as to Counts VI and VII of its Amended Complaint. The purpose of Rule 10 is to ensure that each of the opposing parties has the opportunity to place before the appellate court those portions of the record which it deems relevant to the appeal. The defendants did not have that opportunity. 37 Under Indiana law of implied indemnity, [a] person who, without fault, has been compelled to pay damages because of the wrongful conduct of another primarily liable may recover from such other for expenditures properly made in the discharge of such liability. Dist.Ct. Nov. 10, 1992 Op., CDI App. at 11, citing I.L.E. Indemnity § 5. From the limited record before us we do know that, under Article 11.2.6 of the contract between CDI and Wilhelm, CDI was responsible to pay for all materials, equipment and labor used in, or in connection with, the performance of this Subcontract. Rec. Doc. 11, Exh. B. There was no clear error in the district court's determination that CDI was liable to Wilhelm for any failure by Twichell to pay K & F or Carlisle for use of equipment for the project. 38 Beyond this, however, CDI's argument that the district court incorrectly decided the implied indemnity issue relies on claims that Wilhelm was not compelled to pay K & F and Carlisle, CDI Br. at 37; that the district court failed to adjudicate the amount of debt, if any, owed by Twichell to K & F and Carlisle and the reasonableness of such amount, CDI Br. at 33; and that there has not been any determination that the forty-five thousand ($45,000.00) paid by Wilhelm to K & F and Carlisle was appropriate for the services rendered by them on this project. CDI Br. at 35. The defendants complain that, because they were not notified that this issue would be raised on appeal, they were denied the opportunity to respond to these arguments by citing to relevant portions of the trial transcript. 39 CDI's only response to this Rule 10 argument is to point to various items in the record which it claims supports its version of events. This response misses the point of Rule 10 entirely. The point of Rule 10 is to give notice to the adverse party of issues which will be raised on appeal. Having been given notice of the issues which will be raised, the adverse party can ensure that parts of the transcript which it deems supportive of its case will appear in the record on appeal. The fact that CDI can list items in the record which arguably advance its cause does nothing to cure the effects of its Rule 10 violation. We therefore decline to review the district court's ruling on the implied indemnity issue, the outcome of which, in any event, has no bearing on the attorney's fees question which motivates this appeal.