A judge Thursday granted a motion by attorneys for Kevin Hart and their client’s loan-out company to compel arbitration of the claims by a former friend of the comedian regarding the fallout from the actor’s former 2017 sex-tape controversy.
The motion stemmed from the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit brought by Jonathan “J.T.” Jackson in which he alleged Hart did not use the language they had agreed upon in a July 2021 settlement when Hart addressed their dispute on the social media in October of that year. Jackson sued Hart and the entertainer’s loan-out company, Hartbeat LLC, on July 10.
On Wednesday, Judge Daniel S. Murphy heard arguments on whether Jackson’s four claims against the company should be decided by an arbitrator rather than a jury. Murphy issued a tentative ruling in favor of Hartbeat before the hearing, but afterward said he wanted to mull the issues further before handing down a final decision. He took the case under submission and ruled Thursday.
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,” according to defense attorneys, who further state in their court papers that Jackson decided not to attach the contract to his amended lawsuit brought Aug. 6.
Despite the arbitration provision, Jackson filed the lawsuit anyway, and all proceedings in court should be put on hold pending the outcome of the arbitration, the suit stated. The judge agreed and placed a stay on the case pending an Aug. 14, 2025 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 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.
The 45-year-old 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 alleged.