Starboard Yacht Group LLC v. M/V OCTOPUSSY et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-61696-CIV-SINGHAL
STARBOARD YACHT GROUP LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
CONTESSA MARINE RESEARCH, LLC,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLES JAKE STRATMANN,
Counter-Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER
THIS 	CASE 	is 	about 	an 	accounting 	for 	work 	done 	(or 	not 	done).
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 	Contessa 	Marine 	Research, 	LLC 	(“Contessa”) 	hired
Starboard Yacht Group LLC (“SYG”) to manage repairs on Contessa’s boat. Contessa
paid SYG millions of dollars, but SYG had little to show for it. The Clerk of Court entered
default against SYG because SYG went months without obtaining counsel, as required
by law as an LLC. See (DE [266]). Contessa moved for final default judgment. (DE [287]).
The motion is unopposed.1 Having considered the motion and the record, the Court grants
final default judgment.
1 In an effort to circumvent the rules, Counter-Defendant Charles Jake Stratmann, filed a pleading titled in
part “Opposition to Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment [DE 287]” at [DE 290]. But, he has repeatedly
been told that he may not file pro se on behalf of Starboard Yacht Group, LLC. In fact, just ten days ago,
on February 10, 2026, he filed pro se a Motion to Set Aside Default [DE 284]. The Court was quite clear in
denying the Motion [DE 286] writing, “Stratmann fails to show good cause why the entry of default should
be set aside. The fact that Stratmann filed this motion pro se on behalf of Starboard Yacht Group, LLC
(“SYG”) demonstrates why the entry of default will remain. If Stratmann was serious about vacating default,
Case 0:23-cv-61696-AHS Document 299 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
I. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Courts are authorized to enter a default judgment against a defendant who fails to
defend a lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Naval Logistics, Inc. v. M/V PETRUS, 753 F.
Supp. 3d 1298, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2024) Upon entry of a default, the defendant admits the
plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact. Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Ins.
Services, 780 F.3d 1101, 1106 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v.
Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).
“A defendant’s default alone does not warrant the entry of a default judgment.” Id.
(citing Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206 (“[A] default is not treated as an absolute confession
by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff’s right to recover.”)). “Entry of default
judgment is only warranted when there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the
judgment entered.” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation, 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir.
2015) (quotation omitted). A default judgment may only be entered where the complaint
is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. “Conceptually, then, a motion for default
judgment is like a reverse motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Id.
Further, the court may not enter a judgment of default awarding cash damages
without a hearing “unless the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or one capable of
mathematical calculation.” Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th
Cir. 2003) (quoting Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777
F.2d 1538, 1543-44 (11th Cir. 1985)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
he would have hired counsel for SYG—as required by law—and had the lawyer file this motion. Instead, he
improperly files this motion on behalf of an LLC, asking the Court to trust him, that this time—after nearly
five months—he will finally obtain counsel for SYG. This is far too little, far too late.” And it should be noted
that Stratmann’s filing came just five days after he was advised in open court at the February 5, 2026
hearing that such filings are not proper. While pro se litigants are afforded latitude, the rules still apply to
them. The Motion currently before the Court is therefore unopposed.
Case 0:23-cv-61696-AHS Document 299 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Factual Findings
The Counterclaim and unopposed Pre-Trial Stipulation allege the following facts
which 	are 	deemed 	admitted 	by 	Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s 	default 	and 	lack 	of
opposition:
1. 	Contessa hired SYG as a project manager to refit Contessa’s boat.
(Counterclaim (DE [31] ¶ 10)).
2. 	Contessa wired SYG over four million dollars for repairs, but SYG
can account for less than one and one-half million dollars. Id. at ¶ 8.
3. 	On top of that, Contessa paid SYG $786,175.53 to purchase three
Seakeeper stabilizer units. (Stipulation (DE [269] ¶ 4(n)). SYG failed to deliver the
units. Id. ¶ 4(o).
4. 	Contessa funded SYG $1,825,000.00 to purchase a new engine, but
SYG only paid the supplier $638,750. Id. ¶ 4(u)-(x). Contessa had to pay the
remaining $1,016,242.50 directly to the supplier, on top of the funds already paid
to SYG. Id.
5. 	Contessa funded SYG to purchase jets, but SYG only paid the
supplier $148,500.00. Id. ¶ 4(z)-(aa). Contessa had to pay the supplier directly the
remaining $346,500.00, on top of what Contessa had already paid SYG. Id.
6. 	Contessa funded SYG to pay for docking services, but SYG paid via
credit card and then initiated chargebacks. Id. ¶ 4(bb)-(dd). SYG never refunded
Contessa. Id. Those chargebacks totaled $226,502.19. (DE [287] at 8).
Case 0:23-cv-61696-AHS Document 299 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
B. Legal Conclusions
Contessa brought multiple claims against SYG, including unjust enrichment.2 “A
claim for unjust enrichment has three elements: (1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit
on the defendant; (2) the defendant voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit; and
(3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendants to retain it
without paying the value thereof.” Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 680 F.3d 1329, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2012). All three elements are met here. Contessa paid SYG millions of dollars for
services never rendered, SYG kept those funds, and it would be inequitable for SYG to
retain funds when it never performed the contracted services. Contessa has met its
burden.
Contessa is entitled to a monetary judgment, because the amount is capable of
mathematical determination. 	As with all default judgments, the Court independently
calculates the amount owed based on the well-plead unopposed figures.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Contessa’s Motion
(DE [287]) is GRANTED against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant SYG. A Final Judgment will
be entered by separate order in favor of Contessa and against SYG in the principal
amount of $5,403,414.94,3 plus pre-judgment interest through February 11, 2026, in the
2 Because Contessa is entitled to its requested damages under the unjust enrichment claim, the Court does
not need to determine if the other claims are met.
3 This number is less than what Contessa requested because it does not include the $362,072.20 that
Contessa seeks to obtain from SYG for returning and selling the Seakeeper stabilization units. The Court
is already ordering SYG to return the $786,174.43 plus interest that Contessa paid SYG to obtain the
Seakeeper units. The return of those funds will make Contessa whole regarding those units. That is the
amount that Contessa lost. Contessa is not entitled to those funds and the funds SYG received for returning
the units it purchased. That would result in a windfall for Contessa. A separate issue—not for this Court—
is whether anyone should be charged with First Degree Grand Theft for the $362,072.20. See Florida
Statute § 812.014(2).
Case 0:23-cv-61696-AHS Document 299 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
amount of $1,121,368.24, plus pre-judgment interest thereafter through the date of
judgment in the per-diem amount of $1,254.19, plus costs, and post-judgment interest
thereafter.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 20th day of
February 2026.
Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF
and via Postal Service to:
Charles Jake Stratmann
545 NE 17th Ave
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33001
Copies also to be provided to those present in open Court on February 23, 2026.
Case 0:23-cv-61696-AHS Document 299 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 5 of 5