The man who said Kevin Hart falsely implicated him in sex tape extortion plot, then failed to “publicly exonerate” him, as promised in settlement agreement, can no longer sue his $12 million breach of contract lawsuit against Hart in open court, at least for now, a judge has ruled.

In a ruling signed Thursday, Los Angeles County Judge Daniel S. Murphy ruled that plaintiff Jonathan Jackson lost his right to sue Hart in a public forum when he added a clause to their settlement providing private arbitration.

Jackson had appeared in court Wednesday with his attorney, Daniel Reback, to argue that ratification of the entire settlement, including the arbitration clause, was contingent on Hart’s public exoneration of any extortion related to the Hart’s affair. high-profile sex tape scandal in 2017. According to Jackson, Hart promised to release a lengthy, “meticulously negotiated” statement on social media as a precursor to their contract that would “resolve all issues” without any “monetary compensation.” Reback said the contingency was outlined in a clause he stressed needed to be emphasized in the final regulations signed in August 2021.

“Mr. Jackson insisted to me that the agreement included a…clause that if Mr. Hart does not carry out verbatim the words we have negotiated, all of Mr. Jackson’s promises will be rendered null and void, including “That’s why I included this…clause,” Reback argued in court Wednesday. reiterated the allegation that Hart sent a false email to the district attorney to falsely implicate Jackson in an extortion crime. (Hart’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge’s decision. and the allegation regarding the allegedly fabricated email.)

“It’s not a typical deal where you delegate everything to the referee. There have been specific exclusions that if Mr. Hart does not behave precisely according to this verbiage that we have carefully negotiated, all bets are off,” Reback said.

“This was an agreement to arbitrate any dispute, and this is a dispute, and it is up for arbitration,” Hart’s attorney, Donte Mills, told the judge. “Clearly, the plaintiff in this case is determined to try to embarrass my client and file anything derogatory he can come up with.”

“None of plaintiff’s arguments invalidates the arbitration clause itself,” he wrote in his ruling. He said the trial was now suspended pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Jackson filed his underlying lawsuit for breach of contract in July. He confirmed that he joined Hart on the August 2017 trip to Vegas, where a video of Hart in bed with a model was recorded in Hart’s hotel room, but he insisted that he had not extorted Hart. (Parts of the sex tape were posted on the now-defunct website Fameolous.com, but later deleted.)

Jackson was arrested in April 2018 and charged with extortion in the case. The charges were eventually dropped. According to Jackson, Hart concocted the fake email demanding 20 bitcoins to prevent most of the recording from being released. He claims Hart “induced” prosecutors to argue that Jackson was behind the extortion. He also claimed the comedian hurt him again when he released a documentary series on Netflix in 2019 that doubled down on the extortion claim, even after the extortion charges were dropped. Jackson claimed Hart then tried to avoid a threat of a defamation lawsuit and agreed to deliver the highly negotiated and scripted Instagram video statement that would “publicly exonerate” Jackson.

Jackson, a professional bowler and actor who played a minor role in Hart’s 2014 film Also think like a mansaid Hart should note not only that the criminal charges against Jackson had been dropped, but that Jackson was completely cleared of any involvement in an extortion plot and that the scandal had cost Hart “a valuable friendship.” Jackson alleges that Hart explicitly agreed saying, “I lost someone close to me who I loved and still have a lot of love for, or a high level of love for, and I’m proud to say that all charges against JT Jackson have been dropped. and he is not guilty and has nothing to do with it. According to Jackson, 47, Hart “blatantly broke” their agreement.

In his Instagram video, Hart said their friendship “was lost,” but the statement seemed neutral. “It’s over, and I’m glad it’s over,” he said of the saga. Hart did not include the phrase that Jackson “had nothing to do with it.”

Before issuing his ruling, Judge Murphy said Wednesday that the defamation claim included in Jackson’s breach of contract lawsuit may not be covered by the deal’s arbitration clause. If so, this claim could return to its court once the arbitration process is complete.