Blogger Being Sued By Kevin Hart Over Alleged Civil Extortion Fighting His Plea for Restraining Order in Court Battle

Kevin told the court he watched the interview where “Shakes made statements about me that were simply false, including that I supposedly made a secret video recording of a sexual encounter and faced criminal charges regarding that supposed incident. I did not record any such video, and I have never faced criminal charges in connection with that alleged incident or any related matters."

His lawsuit demanded unspecified damages. A couple of weeks later, Kevin was back in court pleading for a restraining order and injunction.

He asked for a restraining order that would force Tasha K and her company Yelen Entertainment to take down the interview in question.

Kevin wrote, “Working in the entertainment industry, my livelihood depends in large part on my reputation and the public’s perception of me. That perception is of particular concern in light of the fact that I am involved in a number of family-oriented projects, such as the Jumanji franchise, Fatherhood, Captain Underpants, the Secret Life of Pets, and others.”

The comedian claimed the interview had harmed him and would continue to harm him as long as it was up on the internet.

Now, Tasha’s company Yelen Entertainment opposed the request for a restraining order.

The motion attacked Kevin on the first page. “Plaintiff Kevin Hart is a celebrity and the star of, among other movies, the Jumanji films, Captain Underpants, and a 2017 sex tape that famously co-starred someone other than his wife. That 2017 sex tape was the subject of national news coverage at the time and the subject of a widely reported lawsuit in this Court,” the motion read.

Yelen said Kevin was aware of the interview for weeks before he asked for an emergency hearing. Tasha’s company asked the court to deny Kevin’s request.

“Hart has not carried his burden of showing entitlement to a TRO. Most important of all, the Court should reject Hart’s request because his proposed TRO is flatly prohibited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, which provides “an even broader guarantee of the right of free speech and the press than does the First Amendment,” the motion read.

Further, Tasha’s company argued,, “he also cannot show that the balance of possible harms weighs in his favor. Despite insisting that he has already suffered “irreparable harm” that may increase, Hart has not identified any actual harm that he has suffered or that is imminent or ongoing. He only speculates that the publications might harm his reputation or that they might impact professional agreements, if his reputation declines. This is insufficient.”

Yelen asked that Hart not be granted a restraining order and the video remain online.