I agree with Attorney McCall that your claim would revolve around the reasonable nature of the investigation by law enforcement. They are investigating a serious crime and an hour and a half does not appear to demonstrate unreasonable conduct.
In addition, bringing suit against a public entity, i.e. a police department, may require you to comply with statutory requirements regarding Governmental Immunity. You may have to make a timely claim against such an entity or your case could be...
Generally, in civil litigation, there is a discovery cut off 30 days prior to trial. Some Courts provide specific dates for discovery cut off. This could also be impacted by the type of case. i.e. and unlawful detainer action may be shorter. It is not clear what jurisdiction you are in, however, it would appear to be to near the trial date to effectively file a Motion.
You should use Avvo to contact a Litigation attorney in your area and discuss the matter with him/her.
A request for sanctions against opposing counsel is generally appended to a Motion raising a viable issue with the Court. A request for sanctions is generally not the subject of a specific motion. If discovery rules are being violated a judge will look to remedy the infraction, not necessarily award sanctions in the absence of some egregious conduct. That is to say many Judges search for methods to resolve the underlying issue without having to impose sanctions.
Your facts indicate that you resigned prior to any action by your employer. If such is the case, your ability to pursue the employer may be compromised. Use Avvo to find a attorney handling defamation in your area and share the facts with him/her.
Your ability to proceed with a claim against the seller will be based upon the facts and the documents relate thereto.
Under California law a warranty may be disclaimed by using specific language in the transaction. Civil Code section 1792.5. Every sale of goods that are governed by the provisions of this chapter, on an "as is" or "with all faults" basis, made in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall constitute a waiver by the buyer of the implied warranty of...
Liability will be the issue. Establishing that the property owner knew of the existence of the purported hazard and allowed it to exist on his property will be difficult, at best. As to the car owner, having "exposed metal" on a parked vehicle does not appear sufficient to establish liability to a passing pedestrian.
It is not clear from your facts as to what is at issue. A demand to "comply with the R&R's" is rather broad. While the response may have been untimely, it may be prudent to set a meet & confer so as to clarify the issues. What are your goals? What is to be gained from going immediately to formal ADR? As my colleague pointed out, the M&C could save everyone some costs in the long run.
You have a Personal Injury claim. You can seek compensation for your medical bills incurred along with your pain and suffering. Your attorney will have the details on how to protect your interests.
Use Avvo to find a Personal Injury attorney in your area.