FOLLOW US

The Case at a Glance

In June, a self-represented plaintiff filed a multi-count civil complaint alleging sexual battery, assault and defamation against a professional boxer, a livestreamer and Kick Streaming PTY LTD. Two months after filing, no proof of service has appeared on the docket, and the Los Angeles Superior Court has now ordered the plaintiff to explain why. The unresolved service issue is delaying the discovery process the plaintiff says is urgently needed to preserve evidence.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

LOS ANGELES - Getting a lawsuit filed is often the easy part. Getting it served on defendants who don't want to be found is another matter entirely — and that is precisely the wall Havana Saint appears to have run into in her case against Kick Streaming PTY LTD, professional boxer Adrien Broner, streamer Nurideen Shabazz, and unnamed Doe defendants.

Saint, representing herself without an attorney, filed her civil complaint on June 15, 2026, in Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 26STCV18908. The complaint lays out seven causes of action: sexual battery, battery, assault, defamation per se against Shabazz, a separate defamation per se claim against Broner, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence — including negligent retention and negligent failure to act — against Kick.

From the outset, Saint signaled she anticipated trouble getting her filing into the defendants' hands. Alongside her initial complaint, she filed an ex-parte request asking the court to authorize substituted service on Kick — an unusual move this early in a case, and one that suggested she expected conventional service to be difficult. The court denied that request on June 18, 2026.

The docket since then tells its own story. As of this report, no proofs of service have been filed for any of the named defendants. Court records also show Saint qualified for a fee waiver, suggesting she is proceeding without the financial cushion that typically makes tracking down evasive, high-profile defendants easier — a process that can require stakeouts, skip tracing and repeated attempts, all of which drive up process-server costs that self-represented, fee-waived litigants must otherwise absorb largely on their own.

Complicating matters further, both Broner and Shabazz maintain public social media presences that regularly show them surrounded by security, entourages and crowds, and frequently traveling or aboard yachts — the kind of insulated, high-mobility lifestyle that makes personal service notoriously difficult for even well-resourced process servers.

Two months after filing, the court appears to have taken notice. The docket now reflects an order to show cause (OSC) regarding Saint's failure to file proof of service — the kind of order courts typically issue on their own initiative (sua sponte) when a case has gone quiet on the service front for too long. A hearing on that order to show cause has been set for November 13, 2026, at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Before that hearing, Saint will likely be required to file a response detailing what efforts she has made to serve the defendants. If she can demonstrate the defendants have been evading service, she may ask the court to authorize substituted service. Should that fail too, she could ultimately seek service by publication — an option courts generally allow only after a plaintiff shows a diligent, good-faith effort at personal service has come up empty.

The stakes of getting this resolved go beyond procedure. Under California law, a plaintiff generally cannot propound discovery — depositions, document requests, subpoenas — until defendants have been formally served and have appeared in the case. That matters here because Saint's complaint also included a rare request for expedited discovery, a signal that she and her filing are concerned that video, text messages, devices or other evidence relevant to her claims could be lost, altered or destroyed the longer the case sits in procedural limbo.

For now, the case remains frozen at the starting line — allegations filed, but not yet formally in front of the people they name. What happens between now and the November 13 hearing may determine whether Saint's case moves into active litigation or stalls further over the basic question of getting her paperwork delivered.

This report is based on publicly available court filings and docket entries in Havana Saint v. Kick Streaming PTY LTD., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26STCV18908. The claims described are allegations contained in a civil complaint; none of the defendants has been served or has had the opportunity to respond, and no court has ruled on the merits of any claim.

About the Author

Samuel López is a legal analyst and investigative reporter for USA Herald, where his work focuses on civil litigation, court procedure and the legal disputes shaping public figures and the platforms around them. Drawing on years spent tracking cases through the docket — from initial filing through service disputes, motion hearings and trial — his reporting is built on primary court records rather than secondhand accounts, with an emphasis on explaining what the procedural posture of a case actually means for the people involved.

Stay Ahead of the Story

Court dockets move fast, and the difference between a footnote and a headline is often a matter of days. If you want investigative legal reporting and national coverage delivered before it's common knowledge, subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for reporting you won't find anywhere else.

👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald

https://x.com/notCloutbay/status/2091609664534290571/video/1