NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 a pplication s 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 APPEALSPage 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

actiona ble ” 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

infection s w ere 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 i dentity of claims, (2) a final

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

L

. L

. C

. v. Grand Casinos, Inc. , 298 F.3d 1137, 114 2 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 resu lted in a final judgment

on the merits. See Tahoe

- Sierra Pres ervation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg iona l

Plan ning 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.