Henry Napel v. Phillips 66 Company

O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY NAPEL, Case No. 8:23-cv-02382-JWH-DFMx

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING

v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF

PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, No. 42]

JAMES RAND,

KURTIS LAWSHE,

MIKE GUZMAN, and DOES 1 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

I. SUMMARY OF DECISION

Before the Court is the motion of Defendants Phillips 66 Company, Kurtis Lawshe, and James Rand for summary judgment against Plaintiff Henry Napel. The Court conducted a hearing on Defendants’ Motion in January 2025. After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition, as well as the argument of counsel at the hearing, the Court orders that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, for the reasons set forth herein.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations2 Phillips 66 is “an advantaged downstream company, with segment-leading refining and marketing, midstream and chemical businesses with 1,300 employees worldwide.”3 In October 2014, Phillips 66 hired Napel to work as an operator at the company’s Los Angeles refinery. As an operator, Napel was “responsible for…