Daymond John, known for fir appearance on Shark Tank, has obtained a restraining order against three previous contestants he invested in on the show. According to court documents, these individuals have been consistently engaging in verbal attacks against him on social media, describing their experience working with John as a “nightmare”.
The people named in the restraining order, issued by the New Jersey Federal court on Friday, include a former NFL defensive end, Al “Bubba” Baker, his wife Sabrina, and daughter Brittani. As per the order issued, they are prohibited from discussing their interactions with Daymond John publicly, specifically referring to their appearance on the ABC series Shark Tank in 2014, during which they pitched Bubba’s Q Boneless Baby Back Ribs to the panel of investors.
In addition to the restraining order, the court ruling mandated that the baker must remove any “disparaging” remarks from their social media accounts, particularly those posts where they shared their experience with Daymond John and made accusations of his attempted takeover of their ribs business.
Moreover, they are required to delete similar posts related to Rastelli Foods Group, the company responsible for manufacturing the ribs and serving as a partner with the Bakers and John in their business venture.
Also Read:Are Dylan Sprouse and Barbara Palvin Engaged? Fans Are Excited About the News
What does the District Judge’s order says?
U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler stated in his order that all of Baker’s social media posts were consistently negative, disparaging, or a combination of both. He pointed out that such posts have the potential to significantly affect the reputation, goodwill, and credibility of DF Ventures, the company Daymond Hohn established to collaborate with the Bakers.
The judge emphasized that these posts have caused considerable reputational harm to John, which he will now have to address and mitigate to protect his standing in the business community. In the earlier temporary restraining order issued this year, Judge Robert Kugler pointed out that the Bakers violated a 2019 agreement in which they had explicitly agreed not to disparage Daymond John and Rastelli.
Following the recent order issued on Friday, Robert Kugler concluded that the Bakers had indeed “breached” the non-disparagement clause of the settlement agreement. As a consequence, he decided to permanently prohibit them from any future violations of this clause, effectively preventing them from making any more disparaging remarks or comments about Daymond John and Rastelli.
Also Read:Fall Out Boy’s Cover of ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire’ Features Modern News And Pop Culture Moments
Daymond John’s major losses resulting from this Baker’s comments
In his court filings, Daymond John testified that the negative comments made by the Bakers had significant consequences for his professional endeavors. He mentioned that as a result of their posts, a major television network decided to cancel a show that he had been involved with, even though it had been earlier given the green light.
Additionally, he stated that he lost a speaking engagement opportunity, and a major brand that he was supposed to collaborate with in an activation ceased all discussions with him after the defendants began posting their disparaging remarks.
Also Read:Fox Renews ‘The Masked Singer’ for Season 10
In response to the court’s decision against the Bakers, Daymond John expressed a sense of vindication. He released a statement to the Los Angeles Times, stating that the ruling vindicated him and confirmed that he did not engage in any wrongdoing. According to John, the actual facts, the evidence presented, and the federal judge’s opinion all supported his position. He stressed that he has always prioritized transparency and honesty throughout his entrepreneurial journey.
In June, when Daymond John initially filed for a temporary restraining order against the Bakers, his spokesperson, Zach Rosenfield, provided a statement to PEOPLE. The statement explained that John took legal action due to Baker’s purported attempts to undermine their business partnership and violate the legal agreements they had entered into four years ago.
