Kevin Hart responds to sex tape accuser

Kevin Hart

Kevin Hart is in the middle of a $60 million lawsuit and now he’s speaking out against the plaintiff.

According to The Philadelphia InquirerMontia Sabbag filled a lawsuit against Hart earlier this year in relation to a 2017 sex tape. Hart is one of various people listed in the lawsuit including Hart’s former friend Jonathan Todd Jackson, Las Vegas’ Cosmopolitan hotel, and a website known as Fameolous. In the suit, Sabbag accuses the various defendants of recording a sexual encounter between herself and Hart and distributing it online without her knowledge or consent.

Sabbag’s original complaint in the case was initially dismissed in September over technical legal issues. Specifically, the judge said that Sabbag mischaracterized the Fameolous site as a corporation, instead of a limited liability company.

Sabbag then filed an amended complaint that was also dismissed, and Sabbag was given until November 8 to file a second amended complaint. However, instead of doing this, Sabbag’s lawyers asked for an extension, and they claimed that they were engaged in “resolution talks” with “some of the served Defendants,” indicating that a settlement was possible for the case.

“These Resolution Talks had been seemingly fruitful and were being discussed between the various parties with an open mind and willingness to see if resolution was possible in the early stages of litigation,” Sabbag’s motion explained. The motion later requested that her deadline to file a second amended complaint be pushed back to December 12.

Hart responded to this motion by filing his own documents, indicating that he and his council were “not a party to any such settlement discussions” and had “no recent communication” with Sabbag or her attorneys about settling the case. Hart also requested that Sabbag’s attempt at an extension be stricken from court records.

“Most litigation involves settlement discussions at some point, but Plaintiff can cite to no authority for the proposition that supposed progress in such discussions is automatic grounds for delay. It is not,” Hart’s response explained. “Plaintiff is improperly attempting to drag out the litigation in order to delay the inevitable determination that her claims are, in fact, baseless.”