Kevin Hart Begs For More Time To Respond To Sex Tape Partner’s Lawsuit
Oct. 28 2019, Updated 5:27 p.m. ET
Kevin Hart needs more time to respond to the emotional distress and invasion of privacy lawsuit against him. Breaking Celebrity News can exclusively reveal the comedian has filed a request to extend his answer to the complaint by no more than 30 days.
In court papers obtained from Central District Court of California, attorneys for Hart, 40, filed a Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint by Not More Than 30 Days on Friday, October 25.
“It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the undersigned attorneys for the respective parties that the time for defendant, Kevin Darnell Hart, to move, answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint with any and all responsive pleadings is hereby extended up to and including November 25, 2019,” the court papers read.
As Breaking Celebrity News has reported, Montia Sabbag is suing Hart, 40, his former friend Jonathan Todd Jackson, who was arrested and charged with extortion, and Fameolous, the site who published Hart and Sabbag’s sex tape.
In the complaint, she alleged the comedian “negligently or intentionally authorized, allowed and otherwise permitted Jackson access to Hart’s hotel room suite at Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas and breached their duty of care to M Sabbag.”
She continued to allege that Jackson caused her to be “secretly videotaped without her knowledge or consent, while she was engaged in private, consensual sexual relationships with Hart in Hart’s private bedroom suite at the Cosmopolitan.”
Defendants posted a two-minute and 48 second “highlight reel” to obtain “tremendous financial benefit.” She claimed the incident was to “promote Hart’s Irresponsible tour.”
“As a natural and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ actions, Ms. Sabbag has suffered, and continues to suffer, tremendous emotional distress,” the court papers read.
Breaking Celebrity News reported a California judge dismissed the lawsuit against the comedian for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and for “lack of diversity jurisdiction.”
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox