A Los Angeles judge tossed out Hart’s extortion claim, but gave a nod to the rest of the complaint, which accuses Miesha Shakes of defamation and breach of contract.

LOS ANGELES (CN) — Kevin Hart’s lawsuit against his former assistant claiming defamation and extortion cleared another legal hurdle Thursday, when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge mostly denied a motion by the assistant to dismiss the actor-comedian’s complaint on First Amendment grounds.

Last year, Hart’s assistant Miesha Shakes gave an interview to YouTube talk show host Tasha K, revealing that Hart had a serious gambling problem, had cheated on his wife multiple times, had filmed one of the encounters and had gotten one woman pregnant. Hart claims in the lawsuit he filed against both Tasha K and Shakes that before the interview was posted online, he received a phone call warning that the interview would be published “unless Hart paid a ransom of $250,000.”

Shortly thereafter, Tasha K posted a video teaser of the interview in which she said, according to the complaint, “When you don’t pay, we have to get money by any means necessary.” Eventually, the full interview was posted on Tasha K’s website, which charges $12 for a monthly subscription.

Hart then sued both Shakes and Tasha K claiming defamation and extortion. He also sued Shakes for breach of contract, accusing her of breaking the nondisclosure agreement in her contract. Hart moved for a restraining order to force Tasha K to remove clips of the interview from her YouTube channel and website, and to be prevented from posting other clips of the interview in the future. But a previous judge denied the motion, telling Hart’s attorneys that the request was “overbroad” and “vague.”

Both Tasha K, whose real name is Latasha Kebe, and Shakes filed anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds. In April, Judge Holly Fujie agreed to dismiss the extortion claim, finding the controversial YouTuber had only “threatened to release a video that contains statements alleged to be defamatory and to invade plaintiffs’ privacy,” which didn’t qualify as extortion. But Fujie let stand the other causes of action in Hart’s lawsuit, including defamation and invasion of privacy.

Shakes’ Anti-SLAPP motion made similar arguments. As to the breach of contract claim, she argued that her contract, signed in 2017, stated that Hart would pay for her health insurance for three years but that Hart never provided it. That meant, according to her attorney Jerri Ryan of the firm Clark Hill, that the NDA was not enforceable.

“The breach of contract case is focused on the NDA.” Ryan said in a brief hearing Thursday. “But if the NDA is invalid, we shouldn’t even be here.”

Hart, in a written declaration submitted to the court in opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, said that he “paid, and Shakes accepted, all such amounts.” Ryan argued that the statement was vague and lacked any evidence to back it up. Judge Fujie disagreed. It was, she wrote in her tentative ruling later adopted as final, a case of “conflicting factual statements,” meaning that Hart had done enough to meet the minimal standard of surviving the motion to dismiss.

As to the other causes of action, Fujie ruled the same as she had for Tasha K’s motion: she granted the motion to dismiss the extortion claim, but allowed the other causes of action to survive.

A jury trial has been tentatively scheduled for April 2025.