Judge keeps Kevin Hart’s Heartbeat lawsuit against former podcast employees in court

The ruling means the company’s legal battle over alleged trade secrets and breach of contract will remain in court.

Kevin Hart’s Hartbeat has lost its attempt to move its lawsuit against two former employees into private arbitration, leaving the case in Los Angeles Superior Court.

TMZ reported that a judge denied Hartbeat’s motion to compel arbitration in its case against former podcast employees Eric Eddings and Lesley Gwam. Both had signed agreements containing arbitration provisions, but the court found they made a “persuasive showing” that the provisions were unconscionable and could not be enforced against them.

Hartbeat filed its complaint on Feb. 27, accusing Eddings and Gwam of breach of contract, unfair business practices, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Court records show Eddings joined Hartbeat in 2022, while Gwam was hired in April 2023.

The company alleges the pair had access to confidential financial data, partnership strategies and business plans for its audio and podcast division and used confidential information while developing a competing venture. Hartbeat also alleges they created and circulated an investor pitch deck seeking $2 million. The company says both were fired Jan. 30, 2026, after it learned about the deck.

Eddings and Gwam dispute Hartbeat’s claims. In earlier filings, they said their pitch deck relied on standard industry information and their experience before joining Hartbeat. They acknowledged working on their company while still employed but said they did not seek investors or develop show concepts at that time.

The arbitration ruling follows an earlier decision in the same dispute. A court granted Hartbeat a temporary restraining order but later rejected a preliminary injunction, finding the company had not shown that Eddings and Gwam used proprietary information or trade secrets. The court also described Hartbeat’s requested restrictions as “vague, ambiguous, and overly broad.”

The case remains pending. Hartbeat continues to pursue its claims over the alleged use of confidential business information, while Eddings and Gwam continue to deny misappropriating the company’s material.