NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE REICHELT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; DOES, 1 

through 10, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-55290 

D.C. No. 

2:21-cv-03389-FMO-JEM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 13, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

 Lawrence Reichelt appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 

action against the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) for denying him workers’

compensation benefits and allegedly mishandling his applications for workers’

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

 

compensation and other benefits. We affirm. 

1. Reichelt argues that the statute of limitations does not bar his claims. 

Invoking the continuing violation doctrine, he asserts that “[a] new injury occurs 

each time Reichelt is denied appropriate care and compensation, much like each 

payment not made on an installment contract is a new breach of contract.” We 

disagree because the “mere continuing impact from past violations is not 

actionable” in this context. Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)

(cleaned up). The continuing violation doctrine does not apply to Reichelt’s 

claims, which instead accrued when he “kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to know of the 

actual injury.” Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051

(9th Cir. 2008). Reichelt has been aware of the City’s position that his hepatitis 

infections were not job-related as early as 1998 and received a determination from 

the workers’ compensation court that his injuries were work-related in 2015. By 

any calculation, his claims are barred by the governing two-year statute of 

limitations. 

2. Reichelt also argues that res judicata does not bar his present action 

against the City. As the district court correctly concluded, however, this doctrine 

provides a separate and independent ground for dismissing this action. “Res 

judicata is applicable whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final 

judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” Stratosphere Litigation 
Page 3 of 3

 

L.L.C. v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1142 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002). Reichelt’s 

2006 federal lawsuit satisfies all three criteria. First, the earlier suit was also 

against the City. Second, it arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the 

current one—namely, allegations that the City improperly denied and delayed 

paying him workers’ compensation benefits. Third, it resulted in a final judgment 

on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The Supreme Court has 

unambiguously stated that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is a

judgment on the merits.”). 

AFFIRMED.