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

In a decision signed Thursday, Los Angeles District Judge Daniel S. Murphy ruled that plaintiff Jonathan “JT” Jackson forfeited his right to sue Hart in a public forum when he added a clause to their settlement that was similar to a private one agreed to arbitration.

Jackson appeared in court Wednesday with his attorney, Daniel Reback, to argue that ratification of the entire settlement, including the arbitration clause, is contingent on Hart publicly clearing Jackson of any extortion related to Hart's high-profile 2017 sex tape scandal. According to Jackson, Hart promised to release a detailed, “carefully negotiated” statement on social media as a precursor to her agreement to “resolve all issues” without “monetary compensation.” Reback said the contingency was spelled out in a clause he highlighted for emphasis in the final agreement signed in August 2021.

“Mr. “Jackson insisted to me that the agreement contains a (special) clause that voids all of Mr. Jackson's promises, including this promise to enter into arbitration,” Reback argued in court on Wednesday. The lawyer claimed also that Jackson was fraudulently induced to sign the contract. He repeated the allegation that Hart sent a “fabricated email” to the Los Angeles district attorney to falsely implicate Jackson in a racketeering crime On Oct. 10, Reback claimed that the email transmission was “probably intended to take heat out of Hart for having a sex tape video of his extramarital affair.” He said, “Calling JT a blackmailer would “But it would also ruin JT's life.” (Hart's attorney did not respond to a request for comment on the claim about the allegedly fake email.)

“This was an agreement to arbitrate any dispute, and this is a dispute and it belongs in arbitration,” Hart's attorney, Donte Mills, told the judge in court Wednesday. “It appears that the plaintiff in this matter is intent on embarrassing my client and using whatever derogatory language he can think of.”

“None of Plaintiff’s arguments invalidates the arbitration clause itself,” Judge Murphy wrote in his ruling. “The case is stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of the arbitration.”

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

Jackson was arrested in April 2018 on suspicion of extorting Hart. The charges were eventually dropped. According to Jackson, Hart fabricated the fake email demanding 20 Bitcoins to prevent further recordings from being released. Jackson claims that Hart “instigated” to prosecutors the theory that Jackson was behind the extortion. He also claimed the comedian harmed him again when he released a Netflix documentary in 2019 that escalated the extortion claim even after the extortion allegations were dropped. Jackson claimed that Hart later sought to avoid a threatened defamation lawsuit and agreed to make the highly negotiated and scripted Instagram video statement.

Jackson, a professional bowler and actor who played a supporting role in Hart's 2014 film Also, think like a mansaid Hart should acknowledge that the criminal charges against Jackson had been dismissed and that the scandal had cost Hart “a valuable friendship.” Jackson claims Hart specifically agreed to say, “I have lost someone who was close to me and whom I loved and for whom I still have great love or a high degree of love, and I am proud to say, that all charges against JT Jackson have been dropped.” and he is not guilty and had nothing to do with it.” According to Jackson, 47, Hart “flagrantly violated” 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 didn't mention that Jackson had “nothing to do with it.”

Before issuing his ruling, Judge Murphy said Wednesday that the defamation claim contained in Jackson's breach of contract lawsuit may not be covered by the agreement's arbitration clause. In that case, the lawsuit could return to his court after the mediation process is completed, he said.

A representative for Jackson said Friday he plans to appeal the judge's decision. Hart's attorney, Donte Mills, responded to the ruling in an email Rolling Stone. “We will hold people to their agreements,” he said.