be excepted from operation of the rule as an admission of a party opponent. Fed. R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). V. Finally, Fruehauf argues that the District Court erred in its interpretation of South Carolina law concerning the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 41-10-10, et seq., when it awarded Wall treble damages and attorney’s fees. The District Court’s decision to award treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Rice, 318 S.C. 95, 456 S.E.2d 381, 384 (S.C.1995). Section 41-10-40 (C) of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act provides that employers “shall not withhold or divert any portion of an employee’s wages unless ... the employer has given written notification to the employee of na, 355 S.C. 499, 585 S.E.2d 526 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the District Court specifically
holding that the award of treble damages while a matter of discretion for the trial court is inappropriate in circumstances where there is a bona fide wage dispute holding that the tcpas treble damages provision is remedial holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater recognizing that an award of treble damages for an antitrust violation and punitive damages for common law tortious interference with business relations based on same conduct would be duplicative holding that punitive and treble damages cannot both be awarded and indicating that a special jury verdict in this situation would be appropriate holding that immunity is ripe for summary disposition except where there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination