Daymond John Granted Restraining Order Against Shark Tank Contestants

Shark Tank investor Daymond John granted a restraining order against a former Shark Tank contestant accusing him of unfair business practices...

From The Daily Mail

'Shark Tank' celebrity investor Daymond John has been granted a restraining order against former contestants by a federal court in New Jersey.

A judge ruled on Friday that ex-NFL defensive end Al 'Bubba' Baker, his wife Sabrina, and daughter Brittani were banned from speaking online about their 'nightmare' dealings with John after their participation in the show in 2014.

After appearing in the show's fifth season John made an offer on-air to invest $300,000 for a 30 percent stake in their boneless ribs business, Bubba's Q. That deal was later revised to $100,000 for 35 percent after the show.

Sour relations between the Bakers and John became public after a story was published in the LA Times in which they claimed the investor and his partners tried to take over their business and eventually stopped promoting their product.

Then in various posts to social media they criticized both John and his partners.

The judge's decision on Friday makes a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order issued last month permanent.

It requires the Bakers to take down existing statements and bans them from making further remarks about both John and Rastelli Foods Group, a meat manufacturer retained to produce the Bakers' patented Bubba's Q Boneless Baby Back Ribs.

Rastelli Foods Group alleged the Bakers had made false and defamatory statements against it. John had established an entity called DF Ventures to do business with the Bakers' ribs company.

'All the Bakers' posts are negative, disparaging, or both and certainly could impact DFV's and John's reputation, goodwill, and credibility,' Judge Robert Kugler wrote in his order.

'These posts clearly caused reputational harm that John will now have to deal with and counter.'

The judge suggested in his ruling that the family had not been pursuing a remedy but were instead taking out frustrations publicly.

He wrote that the court could 'only draw one logical conclusion: the Bakers are not doing this to try to improve the business or to further some other legitimate purpose.

'Instead, the Bakers' enmity, antipathy, and animosity toward John, DFV, and the Rastllis overcame their financial self-interest and their ability to reasonably work through their issues with John, DFV, and the Rastellis.'