First the good news: What 67-year-old lawyer from Panama wouldn't want to have Antonio Banderas—mainstay of multiple 'Sexiest Man Alive' lists—play you in a movie?

But apparently that's cold comfort to Ramon Fonseca—not to mention his law partner Jurgen Mossack (rendered on the silver screen by Gary Oldman, who won an Academy Award last year for playing the decidedly un-sexy Winston Churchill).

The duo are the founders of now-infamous Mossack Fonseca—formerly one of the world's biggest offshore law firms, until a whistleblower in 2016 leaked 11.5 million of the firm's internal documents in the so-called Panama Papers scandal. 

Basically, it was every law firm's worst nightmare times 10. The resulting disclosures laid bare the offshore tax havens used by the super-rich, as well as dozens of prominent politicians from around the world.

On Tuesday, Mossack and Fonseca sued Netflix in Connecticut federal court for defamation, invasion of privacy, trademark infringement and false advertising. They've asked the court for an injunction to stop the movie "The Laundromat" from being released via streaming by Netflix on Friday.

The Guardian calls the movie, which also features Meryl Streep, "whip-smart" and "fiendishly entertaining." But if you watch the trailer  (which proclaims that the film is "Based on some real shit"), it's easy to see why Mossack and Fonseca aren't happy about how they're depicted.

"Defendant defames and portrays the plaintiffs as ruthless uncaring lawyers who are involved in money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and/or other criminal conduct," wrote their lawyer, Stamford, Connecticut-based solo Stephan Erich Seeger.

Mossack and Fonseca are facing criminal charges in Panama and an ongoing FBI investigation in the United States. As a result, Seeger argues that the movie could prejudice potential jurors. 

"Once the cat is out of the bag, it is impossible to put it back without the consequence of tainting a verdict," Seeger wrote. "This is especially true where the cat is named 'Laundromat' and the charges would include money laundering."

(Er, if the cat had a different name, like Mittens, would that be OK?)

Seeger argues that a "worldwide audience including potential jurors in a Southern District prosecution, could easily echo the views of influential movie reviewers (which include false accusations and misrepresentations), well before they are ever exposed to real evidence."

He continued, "This problem is writ even larger when the influences that come to bear upon such minds include the false and defamatory message of famous directors, supplemented by words that roll off the tongues of decorated academy award winning actresses such as Meryl Streep. The message is hard to forget, however unsubstantiated the claims may be, and this leaves the potential defendant(s) without a viable remedy where Justice is expected most."

Seeger argues that the movie imputes crimes like drug cartel murders and Russian-gangster money laundering to Mossack, Fonseca and their law firm. "The implications and innuendo converge to cast plaintiffs in the light of mastermind criminals whose crimes include, but are not limited to, murder, bribery, money laundering and/or corruption."

Also (though I'm not so sure this counts as a top grievance) Mossack and Fonseca complain that Netflix uses their law firm's logo without permission. 

Netflix, which is represented by Tom Ferber and Michael Adelman of Pryor Cashman and local counsel James Healy of Cowdery & Murphy, points out that the film "has already been exhibited for weeks at film festivals and in cinemas."

In other words, Mittens is long gone from the bag.

In a motion to dismiss, the Netflix lawyers argue that while the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunctive relief, "this court does not need to reach the merits of plaintiffs' motion, however, because plaintiffs do not meet the requirements of the Connecticut long-arm statute necessary for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Netflix."

That is, the movie was shot in California, Florida and Nevada and edited in California, where Netflix in headquartered. The people responsible for creating and marketing the project work in Netflix's Los Angeles office. The film has not been theatrically distributed in Connecticut, nor are there plans to do so.

As for Mossack and Fonseca, they don't live in Connecticut, have an office in Connecticut or conduct business in Connecticut, the Netflix lawyers argue. "[I]t appears that the sole reason this action was filed in this state is because plaintiffs' counsel is based in Connecticut. But the convenience of a plaintiff's counsel is not entitled to any weight in the venue analysis."

"Connecticut has no particular interest in having this case heard here, as neither the plaintiffs nor defendant has any significant connection to the state," they continued in urging the court to dismiss the complaint or transfer it to the Central District of California.