Renowned “Shark Tank” investor Daymond John has sued former contestant Al “Baba” Baker, his daughter Britani, and wife Sabrina during a hearing in federal court in New Jersey. A temporary restraining order and a temporary restraining order were issued.

The order temporarily bans the Bakers from speaking publicly about what they claim was a “nightmare” experience after appearing on the ABC reality show.

In an order issued on Friday, Judge Robert Coogler said, “Defendant’s actions here represent a calculated and deliberate attack on Plaintiff’s reputation and good faith, and in its intensity and relentlessness. It is abnormal,” he said.

The order also makes Bakers disrespectful of Rastelli Foods Group, the meat maker contracted to produce Bakers’ patented Bubba’s Q Boneless Baby Back Ribs, and a partner in the rib business along with Bakers and John. prohibited from making such statements. The company alleged that Bakers made false and defamatory statements against the company.

Kugler said the Baker family, who chose to represent themselves, violated a 2019 settlement agreement in which they agreed not to disrespect John and Rastelli.

The restraining order will apply until a public hearing on the case is held on June 26. The case was postponed earlier this week after Al Baker was hospitalized with chest pain.

The legal action comes after the Baker family became the subject of a recent Los Angeles Times investigation, in which the Bakers misled John and some of his colleagues and partners, They accused him of trying to take over a business and steal profits from a potentially lucrative partnership.

They questioned the business deal John and Rastelli Foods made after they starred in Season 5 of “Shark Tank.”

John & Rastelli Foods originally filed a lawsuit against Bakers last month. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, citing jurisdictional issues. John and Rastelli Foods have filed an amended complaint.

In his complaint, John refuted many of the Baker family’s allegations and explained that he played a key role in helping their business. He said he was a non-controlling partner of the company and “has no access to the company’s bank accounts, credit cards, books or records” and that his role and duties are “limited to that of a ‘brand ambassador’. there is,” he said.

In an amended complaint dated June 7, John alleges that Al Baker had charged approximately $60,480 in fraudulent personal expenses to the company’s credit card since March 2020.

John also claimed that he was operating at an “overall financial loss” from his dealings with Bakers and received about $744,600 from Bakers.

Bakers declined to comment on the temporary restraining order.

Earlier this week, Britani Baker denied the credit card usage allegations in an email to The Times, saying the charges were a business expense and that personal charges would be refunded at the end of each month. “No one[Neither Rastelis nor Daymond John]has ever said that we misused the company’s credit card,” she said.

In a statement Friday, a spokesman for John welcomed the verdict.

“This is the age of social media, where anyone can make statements or accusations without providing truth, evidence or supporting facts,” Daymond John spokesman Zach Rosenfield said in a statement. said. “We appreciate the judge’s ruling in our favor today and the fact that it was done in court on the basis of testimony, facts and evidence, not social media. Facts matter. ”

After the Bakers agreed to an on-air $300,000 offer to acquire a 30% stake, John later claimed that the terms of the deal were changed to $100,000 for a 35% stake. They said John had commissioned the website and ignored complaints about former “Shark Tank” contestants who allegedly managed the company’s bank accounts.

He also claimed that his partnership with John & Rastelli Foods was problematic, with Al Baker being excluded from major business meetings and kept in the dark about real-time financial information. They say they received only about 4% of the publicly announced $16 million in revenue from the business.

A few days after the Times article, John posted a three-and-a-half-minute video response to Twitter, TikTok, and other social media platforms, accusing the Baker family of violating a non-disclosure agreement, and calling the Times article “flawed.” A certain interview and false reporting.”

He told his followers that he released the video saying, “Because I always want you guys to stand up for yourself.” By then, the Baker family had already shared many of their videos on multiple social media platforms, repeating many of the claims outlined in The Times.

John’s attorneys have advised the family that they are “in breach of the agreement” and “not to make derogatory or defamatory remarks about the plaintiff in public, or even publicly disclose confidential information.” It is said that it issued a letter of suspension requesting that it stop doing. Court filings.

The Bakers said they had the right to speak publicly about their experiences.

After John’s complaint, they continued to post videos on social media broadcasting their allegations against John and Rastelli Foods.

“Rastelli Foods and Daymond John believe they have violated the settlement agreement by excluding Al from participation and cooperation with respect to the product,” according to a re-settlement letter sent to the court by the family. These actions “do irreparable damage, especially as patents are expiring,” they said.

Times staff writer Anusha Sakoui contributed to this report.