First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Bufete MF & CO., RAMON FONSECA, JURGEN MOSSACK, MOSSACK FONSECA & CO., S.A..Responses due by 11/5/2019 (Seeger, Stephan)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MOSSACK FONSECA & CO., S.A, BUFETE
MF & CO., JÜRGEN MOSSACK and
RAMÓN FONSECA
Plaintiffs
v.
NETFLIX INC.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO:
OCTOBER 15, 2019
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Plaintiffs, by and through their Attorney, move this Court, pursuant to Rule
and 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a Preliminary Injunction, (1)
enjoining the Defendant, NETFLIX INC. (hereinafter “NETFLIX”) from airing its film
“The Laundromat” in theatres and/or via its streaming platform to subscribers, using the
names of the Plaintiffs, absent a disclaimer and/or written acknowledgement displayed to
the viewer confirming that Plaintiffs have never been convicted of money laundering, tax
evasion or any financial crime or conspiracy to commit such crime, and that views
expressed or implied in the movie do not, and are not, meant to constitute proof to the
contrary, and (2) prohibiting NETFLIX from using and/or tarnishing Mossack Fonseca
& Co., S.A.’s (hereinafter “MFSA”) trademarked and properly registered and protected
logo, without express written consent, authority and/or license granted by MFSA.
In support of this Application, the Plaintiffs have submitted an accompanying
Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,
and rely further upon the Affidavit of Arthur Ventura Jr., the Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint, any other pleadings and papers filed in this action, and where applicable the Page 2 arguments of Plaintiffs’Counsel and/or further evidence as the Court may consider at or
before a hearing upon this Application or any hearing upon Order to Show Cause why the
Plaintiffs’ Application Preliminary Injunction should not issue.
Plaintiffs (hereinafter “MFGROUP”) bring this action for damages and
injunctive relief against Defendant Netflix, for Defamation, (Libel and Libel Per Se),
False Light Invasion of Privacy, Trademark Infringement by Dilution, and Federal False
Advertising. The Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims are rooted in all of the
aforementioned causes of action, except the Federal False Advertising Count.
`
This Court has wide discretion in determining whether to grant a preliminary
injunction. Millions of NETFLIX subscribers worldwide will begin to view “The
Laundromat,” on October 18, 2019. The movie defames the Plaintiffs and directly and/or
by innuendo portrays them to be guilty of money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and or
other crimes. Notably, the anticipated release date corresponds with times during which
the Plaintiffs will be defending criminal charges against them in Panama. The legal
system in Panama obligates prosecutors to investigate what it learns in the media where
an accusation of crime appears, under the doctrine of notitita criminis. Additionally,
since both MOSSACK and FONSECA are the subjects of an FBI Investigation in the
Southern District of New York that could result in a trial in the United States, the false
“Big Screen” portrayal of their involvement in money laundering and/or other financial
crimes poses an immediate threat and harm to the Plaintiffs’ fair Trial rights. The
defamatory representations made about Plaintiffs’ involvement in crime and unethical
behavior, along with the disparaging manner in which the Plaintiffs and their protected
logos are portrayed, stands to affect current proceedings against them in Panama, and to Page 3 pollute a potential jury pool in a U.S. criminal prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to
injunctive relief preventing NETFLIX from defaming the Plaintiffs, or any of them, and
disparaging and misusing their protected logo(s) for economic gain.
Additionally, NETFLIX’s portrayal of the Plaintiffs as criminals in the movie
threatens to undo any opportunity they have to regain clientele or conduct future
business. The manner in which NETFLIX portrays MFGROUP will cause others to
avoid them in business, and future opportunities will be lost, due to NETFLIX’s portrayal
of the Plaintiffs in the false light of criminality.
The Plaintiffs are very likely to suffer immediate irreparable harm, and they are
also likely to succeed on the merits of their claims as expounded in the Verified
Complaint. Thus, they are entitled to injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff, therefore, prays that a narrowly tailored Preliminary
Injunction be issued forthwith, and without the necessity of Plaintiffs posting a bond.
The Plaintiffs also pray that the Preliminary Injunction continue as against the
Defendants, pending the outcome of this litigation.
THE PLAINTIFFS,
BY___________________________
Stephan Seeger, Esq. (CT 19234)
Law Offices: Stephen J. Carriero Bedford Street, Suite 3
Stamford, CT 06901
(203) 273-5170
(203) 357-0608
Seegerkid2@aol.com Page 4 ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard this
day of October, 2019, is
hereby
granted/denied as follows:
_____________________________
Hon.
, District Court Judge
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MOSSACK FONSECA & CO., S.A, BUFETE
MF & CO., JÜRGEN MOSSACK and
RAMÓN FONSECA
Plaintiffs
v.
NETFLIX INC.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO:
OCTOBER 15, 2019
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Plaintiffs, by and through their Attorney, move this Court, pursuant to Rule
and 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a Preliminary Injunction, (1)
enjoining the Defendant, NETFLIX INC. (hereinafter “NETFLIX”) from airing its film
“The Laundromat” in theatres and/or via its streaming platform to subscribers, using the
names of the Plaintiffs, absent a disclaimer and/or written acknowledgement displayed to
the viewer confirming that Plaintiffs have never been convicted of money laundering, tax
evasion or any financial crime or conspiracy to commit such crime, and that views
expressed or implied in the movie do not, and are not, meant to constitute proof to the
contrary, and (2) prohibiting NETFLIX from using and/or tarnishing Mossack Fonseca
& Co., S.A.’s (hereinafter “MFSA”) trademarked and properly registered and protected
logo, without express written consent, authority and/or license granted by MFSA.
In support of this Application, the Plaintiffs have submitted an accompanying
Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,
and rely further upon the Affidavit of Arthur Ventura Jr., the Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint, any other pleadings and papers filed in this action, and where applicable the
1
PDF Page 3
arguments of Plaintiffs’Counsel and/or further evidence as the Court may consider at or
before a hearing upon this Application or any hearing upon Order to Show Cause why the
Plaintiffs’ Application Preliminary Injunction should not issue.
Plaintiffs (hereinafter “MFGROUP”) bring this action for damages and
injunctive relief against Defendant Netflix, for Defamation, (Libel and Libel Per Se),
False Light Invasion of Privacy, Trademark Infringement by Dilution, and Federal False
Advertising. The Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims are rooted in all of the
aforementioned causes of action, except the Federal False Advertising Count.
`
This Court has wide discretion in determining whether to grant a preliminary
injunction. Millions of NETFLIX subscribers worldwide will begin to view “The
Laundromat,” on October 18, 2019. The movie defames the Plaintiffs and directly and/or
by innuendo portrays them to be guilty of money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and or
other crimes. Notably, the anticipated release date corresponds with times during which
the Plaintiffs will be defending criminal charges against them in Panama. The legal
system in Panama obligates prosecutors to investigate what it learns in the media where
an accusation of crime appears, under the doctrine of notitita criminis. Additionally,
since both MOSSACK and FONSECA are the subjects of an FBI Investigation in the
Southern District of New York that could result in a trial in the United States, the false
“Big Screen” portrayal of their involvement in money laundering and/or other financial
crimes poses an immediate threat and harm to the Plaintiffs’ fair Trial rights. The
defamatory representations made about Plaintiffs’ involvement in crime and unethical
behavior, along with the disparaging manner in which the Plaintiffs and their protected
logos are portrayed, stands to affect current proceedings against them in Panama, and to
2
PDF Page 4
pollute a potential jury pool in a U.S. criminal prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to
injunctive relief preventing NETFLIX from defaming the Plaintiffs, or any of them, and
disparaging and misusing their protected logo(s) for economic gain.
Additionally, NETFLIX’s portrayal of the Plaintiffs as criminals in the movie
threatens to undo any opportunity they have to regain clientele or conduct future
business. The manner in which NETFLIX portrays MFGROUP will cause others to
avoid them in business, and future opportunities will be lost, due to NETFLIX’s portrayal
of the Plaintiffs in the false light of criminality.
The Plaintiffs are very likely to suffer immediate irreparable harm, and they are
also likely to succeed on the merits of their claims as expounded in the Verified
Complaint. Thus, they are entitled to injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff, therefore, prays that a narrowly tailored Preliminary
Injunction be issued forthwith, and without the necessity of Plaintiffs posting a bond.
The Plaintiffs also pray that the Preliminary Injunction continue as against the
Defendants, pending the outcome of this litigation.
THE PLAINTIFFS,
BY___________________________
Stephan Seeger, Esq. (CT 19234)
Law Offices: Stephen J. Carriero
810 Bedford Street, Suite 3
Stamford, CT 06901
(203) 273-5170
(203) 357-0608
Seegerkid2@aol.com
3
PDF Page 5
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard this
day of October, 2019, is
hereby
granted/denied as follows:
_____________________________
Hon.
, District Court Judge
4
Back to 
