Judge postpones verdict in Kevin Hart sex tape case

LOS ANGELES – A judge has delayed and delayed ruling on a request by lawyers for Kevin Hart's loan company to compel arbitration over claims by a former friend of the comedian related to the fallout from the actor's previous 2017 sex tape controversy instead decided to submit the case.

The motion stems from the lawsuit filed by Jonathan “JT” Jackson in Los Angeles Superior Court, in which he claimed Hart did not use the language they agreed to in a July 2021 settlement when Hart began their dispute in October of the same year on social media. Jackson sued Hart and the entertainer's rental company, Hartbeat LLC, on July 10.

On Wednesday, Judge Daniel S. Murphy heard arguments on whether Jackson's four lawsuits against the company should be decided by an arbitrator rather than a jury. Murphy issued a preliminary ruling in Hartbeat's favor before the hearing, but said afterwards he wanted to think the matter through further before making a final decision.

Jackson's allegations against Hartbeat relate to a written contract between him and the company in which both sides agreed to mandatory arbitration of any “controversies, claims or disputes,” according to Hartbeat's lawyers, who also state in their court filings that Jackson agreed , which did not attach the contract to its amended complaint, filed Aug. 6.

Despite the arbitration clause, Jackson filed the lawsuit anyway and all court proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration, the lawsuit says.

In 2018, Jackson was accused of trying to blackmail the married Hart by allegedly threatening to release a video of the performer having sex with another woman. However, the criminal proceedings were dropped three years later.

In July 2021, Jackson and Hart settled their disputes and Hart agreed to make a public statement of exoneration, leaving Jackson hopeful that he could overcome the negative publicity of the criminal allegations, the lawsuit says.

However, Hart, 45, “flagrantly breached the contract by failing to make the agreed-upon public statement exonerating Plaintiff, which caused significant harm and irreparable harm to Plaintiff's reputation,” the lawsuit says.

Related