UPS

MEMORANDUM

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) appeals the district court’s denial of its request for attorney’s fees. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual history of this case, we need not recount it here.

UPS seeks attorney’s fees for its successful defense of Ben Lopez’s claim, pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, for compensation related to overtime and meal and rest periods. California Labor Code § 218.5(a) creates a fee-shifting regime in “any action brought for the nonpayment of wages” but, by its terms, “does not apply to any action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable under [Cal. Labor Code § ] 1194.” California Labor Code § 1194(a) states that only a prevailing employee may recover fees in an action for nonpayment of overtime compensation. In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that “neither section 1194 nor section 218.5 authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to a party that prevails on a section 226.7 claim.” 53 Cal.4th 1244 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 , 274 P.3d 1160, 1162 (2012). We therefore affirm the district court’s decision with respect to fees associated with UPS’s defense of Lopez’s § 226.7…