Judge Orders Kevin Hart to Pay Arbitration Fees or Return to Court

A judge Wednesday ordered Kevin Hart to pay all arbitration fees associated with the claims of a former friend of the comedian stemming from an alleged breach of a settlement agreement and the fallout concerning Hart’s 2017 sex tape.
The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit brought by Jonathan ” J.T.” Jackson alleges Hart did not use the language they had agreed upon in a July 2021 settlement when Hart addressed their differences on social media in October of that year. Jackson sued Hart and the entertainer’s loan-out company, Hartbeat LLC, last July 10.
So, in a hearing Wednesday, Judge Daniel S. Murphy directed Hart to abide by the comic’s alleged March 7 commitment to pay the arbitration fees or the case will return to court. The judge said Hart has only paid the initial $6,750 cost to begin the process.
The judge noted that Jackson contends he relies solely on government assistance for his income and that he earns below the federal poverty line.
“Because (Jackson) has demonstrated his inability to pay for the costs of arbitration, the arbitration will be waived unless (Hart and Hartbeat) pay for all of the costs of arbitration,” Murphy wrote.
Arbitration became an issue when the judge granted Hart’s motion to compel the procedure during a hearing in October. According to Hart’s lawyers, Jackson’s allegations involve a written contract between him and the company in which both sides agreed to mandatory arbitration of any “controversy, claim or dispute.”
Murphy agreed and also placed a stay on the case pending an Aug. 14 status conference.
In 2018, Jackson was charged with attempting to extort the married Hart by allegedly threatening to make public a video of the performer having sex with another woman, but the criminal case was dropped three years later.
In July 2021, Jackson and Hart, now 45, settled their disputes and Hart agreed to make a public statement of exoneration, leaving Jackson with the hope he would be able to overcome the negative publicity from the criminal accusations, the suit stated.
Hart, however, “blatantly breached the contract by failing to issue the agreed-upon public statement exonerating plaintiff, causing significant harm and irreparable damage to plaintiff’s reputation,” the suit alleges.