Opinion ID: 2623203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Award of Attorney's Fees to Providence

Text: We now turn to Hutka's last challenge in her appeal, her contention that the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Providence constituted improper fee shifting. The trial court granted fees to Providence as a sanction against Hutka for her untimely amendment of her complaint in 2000 to include an FLSA claim, five years after she filed her original complaint in 1995. Providence does not allege that it incurred any additional expenses relating to the late filing of Hutka's FLSA complaint. Providence instead argues that it moved for the reimbursement of partial attorney's fees that it had unnecessarily expended defending the now-defunct AWHA claims as a sanction for the late amendment. Providence apparently believes that the fees expended on the AWHA claim were unnecessary because Hutka's AWHA claim was unsuccessful. But to the extent that Providence seeks fees spent on defending an unsuccessful AWHA claim, this reimbursement amounts to fee shifting, which is impermissible under the AWHA. We have previously held in Grimes v. Kinney Shoe Corp. that a prevailing defendant in an AWHA action to recover wages is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. [44] Even if Hutka had timely filed to amend her complaint to include the FLSA claim, the two claims were not mutually exclusive and Providence did not demonstrate to the superior court a nexus between the late filing of the FLSA claim and additional expenses it must incur because the AWHA and FLSA claims were not brought together. Of course attorney's fees for dilatory amendments may be appropriate if the late filing of a complaint prejudices an opposing party and the fees provide a remedy for curing the prejudice. Such prejudice may result when the opposing party did not have the opportunity to question a witness regarding the new claim during a previous deposition and must re-depose a witness to ask additional questions relating to issues that arise in the amended complaint. But there must be a showing of a specific nexus between the late filing and additional expenses; otherwise, the fees would not necessarily be associated with the delay or issues of lack of notice. The mere amendment of the complaint to include the FLSA claim was not objectionable. Because the award of attorney's fees for expenditures Providence incurred defending Hutka's now-defunct AWHA claims constituted impermissible fee shifting under the AWHA, the trial court erred in awarding $7,134.50 in attorney's fees to Providence. We reverse and vacate the trial court's judgment on this issue.