Case Background
Ryen Motzek filed this civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on January 4, 2024. The case, assigned number CGC24611404, centered on a motor vehicle collision involving a skateboarder and a passenger car. Attorney Reuben J. Donig represented Motzek, while Andrew F. Noble served as the attorney for the primary Defendant, Kendu Bomani. The litigation moved forward after the defense filed a formal answer on March 12, 2024, which contested the allegations and raised several legal barriers to the Plaintiff's recovery.
Cause
The incident occurred on November 26, 2022, around the 400 block of Eddy Street in San Francisco. Ryen Motzek traveled eastbound in a designated bike lane on his skateboard. At the same time, Kendu Bomani operated a 2021 Honda Accord owned by Dwight Hall. The car struck Motzek, and the Plaintiff alleged that Bomani drove and maintained the vehicle in a negligent, careless, and reckless manner. Furthermore, Motzek claimed that Dwight Hall acted negligently by entrusting the vehicle to Bomani, asserting that Hall knew or should have known that Bomani was not competent to operate the car safely.
Injury
The collision caused Ryen Motzek to suffer severe bodily injuries and intense physical pain. Because of the severity of these injuries, Motzek required medical treatment immediately following the accident and anticipated the need for continued healthcare in the future. The trauma from the impact significantly altered his physical well-being and forced him to manage long-term recovery efforts.
Damages Sought
Motzek pursued a variety of compensatory damages to be proven at trial. He requested coverage for all past and future hospital and medical expenses. Additionally, the lawsuit sought compensation for lost wages and the loss of future earning capacity resulting from his inability to work. The Plaintiff also claimed general damages for pain and suffering, along with property damage related to the personal items involved in the crash.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Ryen Motzek.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Reuben J. Donig
Defendant(s): Kendu Bomani | Dwight Hall | Does 1 to 10.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Amy Carlson | Richard Wardell Loveland | Andrew Franklin Noble
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff’s Claims of Negligence
The Plaintiff’s attorney argued that the Defendants were the legal and proximate cause of Motzek’s damages. They contended that the driver's failure to respect the bike lane led directly to the collision. The legal team emphasized that the vehicle owner shared the blame because he authorized an incompetent driver to take the wheel, creating a foreseeable danger to others on the road.
Defense and Denials
In the formal answer, Kendu Bomani denied every allegation in the complaint, specifically stating he was not negligent and that Motzek was not injured as alleged. The defense argued that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. They also asserted that Motzek and other unknown third parties were guilty of contributory negligence, suggesting the Plaintiff’s own actions caused or contributed to the accident. Finally, they argued that Motzek failed to use reasonable diligence to mitigate his injuries, which aggravated his condition.
Jury Verdict
A San Francisco jury delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of Plaintiff Ryen Motzek in June 2025, awarding him $420,000 in total damages after finding Defendant Kendu Bomani negligent in a vehicle-related incident. The Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, formally entered judgment on the special verdict on July 17, 2025, with the Honorable Victor Hwang presiding.
The lawsuit, named Kendu Bomani and Dwight Hall as Defendants, along with Does 1 through 10. The trial commenced on June 2, 2025, in Department 502 of the San Francisco County Superior Court and concluded with the jury's special verdict on June 16, 2025.
The Jury's Findings on Negligence
On the first question, the jury unanimously found that Kendu Bomani acted negligently. The second question asked the jury to determine causation, and the panel concluded that Bomani's negligence served as a substantial factor in causing harm to Ryen Motzek. When the jury reached the fourth question, which asked whether Motzek himself acted negligently, the jurors answered "No." This response cleared the Plaintiff of any contributory fault and meant the jury did not need to address questions five and six, which dealt with apportioning responsibility. Because the jury found no negligence on Motzek's part, the damages award would not be reduced under California's comparative fault rules.
Breakdown of the Damages Award
The third question required the jury to calculate Motzek's total damages without reducing them based on any fault attributable to him. The jurors broke down the $420,000 total into four distinct categories covering both past and future losses.
For past economic loss, the jury awarded $27,500 in medical expenses, representing costs Motzek already incurred for treatment related to the harm caused by Bomani's negligence. Looking ahead, the jurors awarded $32,500 for future medical expenses, recognizing that his treatment needs would extend beyond the trial.
The jury also awarded $60,000 for past noneconomic loss, which included physical pain and mental suffering Motzek endured from the incident through the trial. The largest single component came under future noneconomic losses, where the jury determined Motzek deserved $300,000 for the physical pain and mental suffering he would continue to experience in the years ahead. The presiding juror signed and dated the verdict form on June 16, 2025.
Judgment Entered
Approximately one month after the jury delivered its verdict, the Court formalized the outcome through a written judgment. Based on the jury's findings, the Court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Ryen Motzek would receive $420,000 by way of the lawsuit and that judgment was entered in his favor and against Defendant Kendu Bomani in that amount.
The Court also designated Motzek as the prevailing party pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, entitling him to submit a memorandum of costs. The Court retained jurisdiction to determine any issues related to those costs. Once Motzek files his memorandum of costs and any related proceedings conclude, the Court clerk will enter the awarded costs, applicable interest, and any related amounts on the face of the judgment, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(4). The judgment, signed by the Judge of the Superior Court on July 17, 2025, brought the litigation to its formal conclusion.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
