An attorney for Kevin Hart has clarified in new court papers that although the comedian has settled his defamation claim against online personality Tasha K, his case is proceeding against a former personal assistant.
Hart’s Los Angeles Superior Court suit, originally filed in December 2023 and amended a month later, involved a social media conversation between ex-Hart aide Miesha Shakes and Tasha K, whose real name is Latasha Transrina Kebe. In a sworn declaration filed Thursday with Judge Holly Fujie, Hart attorney Stacey Knox says another of the comic’s lawyers mistakenly filed court papers in February stating that a resolution of his case was reached as to both women.
“Plaintiffs were unable … to resolve their claims as to Shakes, against whom the litigation will not be dismissed, but will instead continue,” Knox says.
No terms were revealed as to the settlement with Tasha K.
In their court papers, the 45-year-old Hart’s attorneys contended that their client and his company, K. Hart Enterprises Inc., suffered “irreparable harm from the continued publication and broadcasting of the interview and related content, which includes defamatory statements, including false statements regarding Hart’s supposed criminal conduct, which are damaging to his reputation and thereby to his livelihood as a performer.”
Hart’s lawyers further maintained that the comedian and Shakes had a non-disclosure agreement and that Shakes breached the accord, although Shakes contended the contract took advantage of her mental state at the time. Hart’s attorneys also asserted that Shakes and Kebe sought $250,000 in order to keep quiet.
In a sworn declaration, Shakes maintained she was unaware of the NDA’s terms.
“At the time of signing the NDA, I was suffering from significant mental health issues and was under considerable financial distress due to my unemployment,” Shakes said. “Hart was fully aware of my ongoing health issues and critical need for health insurance and funds, as I could not afford health insurance or my prescribed medications.”
Shakes further said that when she signed the NDA she was unaware that it included a confidentiality clause because Hart told her it was a “mutual release” that would benefit the plaintiff and her family.
Shakes contended she was not involved in an extortion plot against Hart and that her use of the word “charges” during the interview pertained to potential civil, not criminal allegations.