Central Boat Rentals, Inc. v. Harbor Dredging, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CENTRAL BOAT RENTALS, INC. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-2861
HARBOR DREDGING, INC., ET AL. SECTION “O”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion1 to continue trial date and extend deadlines by
Plaintiff Central Boat Rentals, Inc. (“Central Boat”). Third-Party
Defendant/Defendant Stolt Tankers, USA (“Stolt”) opposes2 the motion to continue.
Plaintiff filed a reply3 in further support of its motion. For the following reasons, the
motion will be denied without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
A brief summary of this maritime matter’s procedural history contextualizes
Plaintiff’s motion to continue the February 2, 2026 bench trial and pretrial deadlines.
Alleging claims for breach of a charter party and open account, Plaintiff
Central Boat sued4 Port Bolivar Marine Services, Inc. (“Port Bolivar”) and Harbor
Dredging, Inc. (“Harbor Dredging”), which filed a third-party demand5 against Stolt;
in its third-party demand, Harbor Dredging, which allegedly utilized towing services
and chartered barges from Central Boat for use in Stolt’s dredging project in Texas,
1 ECF No. 207.
2 ECF No. 212.
3 ECF No. 214.
4 ECF No. 1.
5 ECF No. 23. Harbor Dredging alleged unjust enrichment and breach of an oral contract
relating to the scope of dredging services Harbor Dredging allegedly provided to Stolt. Port Bolivar
filed a crossclaim against Harbor Dredging. ECF No. 25.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 8

2
impleaded Stolt as a defendant (in which Harbor Dredging demanded judgment for
both Harbor Dredging and Central Boat against Stolt), thus tendering Stolt as a
defendant to Central Boat under Rule 14(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.6
Originally proceeding under scheduling order issued by another section of this
Court until the case was transferred to the undersigned, the parties have engaged in
motion practice and discovery, which was hindered when Harbor Dredging’s counsel
withdrew and no new counsel enrolled, in spite of deadlines requiring the same.7 In
May 2024, the Court granted Central Boat’s request for additional time to conduct
discovery and extended the discovery deadline.8 Ultimately, following a status
conference in June 2024, the Court granted—over Stolt’s objection—Central Boat’s
motion to continue the trial and pretrial discovery deadlines given Central Boat’s
contention that “the parties have been deprived of the ability to depose a critical
witness[,]” Harbor Dredging’s corporate representative, Ronald Maturin.9
Since granting the continuance, motion practice has continued. Additionally,
Stolt has moved for a default judgment as to Harbor Dredging.10 Central Boat has
obtained a default judgment against Harbor Dredging.11 In October 2024, the Court
6 See ECF No. 23.
7 ECF Nos. 48, 100.
8 ECF No. 77.
9 ECF Nos. 85 (Central Boat’s motion to continue), 89 (Stolt’s opposition to Central Boat’s
motion to continue), 100 (Minute Entry and Order). In its Order, the Court specifically reopened
“discovery deadlines for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to conduct depositions of Harbor
Dredging, Inc.’s corporate representative and Roland Maturin, and for Harbor Dredging, Inc. to
produce discovery.” ECF No. 100.
10 ECF No. 138.
11 ECF No. 172. The default judgment (i) enters judgment against Harbor Dredging in Central
Boat’s favor in the full amount of its claim for a total judgment of $763,735.13 plus interest; and (ii)
preserves Stolt’s rights and defenses.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 8

3
approved and entered a consent judgment between Central Boat and Port Bolivar in
which judgment for the full amount of Central Boat’s claim, $763,735.13, plus
interest, was entered against Port Bolivar and in favor of Central Boat.12 Recently,
Central Boat has availed itself of judgment collection remedies to recover on the
judgment(s) it has obtained, for example, by obtaining writs of fieri facias and
garnishment.13 And, on June 3, 2025, Harbor Dredging’s corporate representative,
Ronald Maturin, testified during a Judgment Debtor Exam.14
Almost one year after granting Central Boat’s motion to continue the trial and
discovery deadlines, on May 16, 2025, the Court issued the new scheduling order,
which imposed an August 14, 2025 cutoff date for limited discovery and set a bench
trial for February 2, 2026.15 On the August 14 cutoff date, Central Boat moved to
compel Harbor Dredging’s representative’s deposition; in the motion, Central Boat
indicated that it had not received any response when it contacted Harbor Dredging
during the first and second weeks of August 2025.16 Magistrate Judge Dossier denied
the motion without prejudice, to be re-urged if the Court extended the discovery
deadline.17
Now, citing the recent death of Harbor Dredging’s corporate representative,
Roland Maturin, Central Boat moves to continue the trial and related deadlines,
12 ECF No. 151 (order granting ECF No. 117, joint motion for entry of consent judgment).
13 ECF Nos. 192, 193, 213, 217-19.
14 ECF No. 191.
15 ECF No. 188. The scheduling conference was set upon Stolt’s motion requesting the same.
See ECF Nos. 176 (motion) and 178 (ordering granting motion).
16 ECF No. 196. Stolt opposed Central Boat’s motion. See ECF No. 198.
17 ECF No. 199.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 8

4
contending that a continuance is necessary “while the parties determine who will
serve as Harbor Dredging’s representative going forward and assess how this case
should proceed.”18 Central Boat suggests that a continuance “will allow all parties to
regroup, assess how to move forward, and determine whether repayment by judgment
debtor Port Bolivar Marine Services through seized assets now before the Court . . .
may moot the need to prosecute Central Boat’s claims against Stolt in whole or in
part.”19 Stolt opposes any continuance because Central Boat failed to diligently
pursue the very “critical” and “key” discovery predicating Central Boat’s prior
continuance request, which was granted so Central Boat could pursue just that.20
Central Boat replies that no individual may act as a representative of Harbor
Dredging and it accordingly “intends to renew its motion to appoint a receiver for
Harbor Dredging.”21
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). To assess whether Plaintiff has shown good cause under Rule
16(b)(4) to continue the February 2026 jury trial, the Court considers “(1) the
explanation for the failure to timely [comply with the scheduling order]; (2) the
importance of the [modification]; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the [modification];
and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Squyres v. Heico Cos.,
18 ECF No. 207-1 at 1.
19 Id. at 2-3.
20 ECF No. 212.
21 ECF No. 214.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 8

5
782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Applying those Rule 16(b)(4) factors here, Plaintiff Central Boat fails to show
good cause to continue the February 2026 bench trial and related deadlines. In its
second request to continue the trial schedule (and third request to continue pretrial
deadlines), Central Boat recites the good cause factors but fails meaningfully to apply
them. Instead, Central Boat repackages its same arguments advanced in support of
its first motion to continue the trial.22 This time, good cause is absent.
None of the factors support Central Boat’s continuance request. Central Boat
fails to demonstrate why it could not obtain the requisite discovery in advance of the
generous extensions previously granted for the same purpose. First, insofar as
Central Boat proffers an explanation for its failure to depose Harbor Dredging’s
corporate representative before August 14, the explanation (that it “was unable to
complete a deposition” sooner because Harbor Dredging’s corporate representative’s
health declined and ultimately died) rings hollow. Central Boat did not contact
Harbor Dredging or Mr. Maturin to schedule his deposition until one week before the
twice-extended discovery deadline. Though Central Boat has had ample time to
conduct discovery, it fails to explain why Mr. Maturin—whose health declined in
August 2025—was not deposed sooner, in advance of the latest (or any prior)
discovery deadline.23 Having granted Central Boat’s motion to continue the prior trial
schedule so that Central Boat could conduct this very discovery more than one year
22 ECF Nos. 85 and 207.
23 Indeed, he appeared for a judgment debtor exam in June.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 8

6
ago indicates that Central Boat failed to diligently pursue the discovery it now
contends supports the instant motion to continue.
The second factor, the importance of modifying the scheduling order, also
disfavors a continuance, particularly of the bench trial date. Central Boat’s ostensibly
weak and tardy efforts to obtain the evidence it labels “critical” belies its suggestion
that such evidence is indeed important enough to justify upsetting twice-extended
deadlines and the trial. What is more, Central Boat appears to change course in its
reply, contending that there is no corporate representative for Harbor Dredging now
that Mr. Maturin has died so it “intends to renew its motion to appoint a receiver for
Harbor Dredging.”24 Still, Central Boat fails to demonstrate how modifying the
pretrial schedule and February 2, 2026 bench trial date is important to facilitating
this renewed intention.
Nor do the third and fourth factors support a continuance of the trial schedule.
Central Boat does not address the potential prejudice that would befall Stolt in
granting another continuance. For its part, Stolt indicates that granting a
continuance would amplify, not cure, the prejudice to Stolt, which “has been diligently
seeking the resolution of this lawsuit since its inception.”25 Again, and critically,
Central Boat got what it requested last time—more time to depose and issue fact
24 Central Boat concedes that it has “made inquiries to determine whether a succession
representative will be appointed or another individual will take over as acting member of manager of
Harbor Dredging[.]” ECF No. 207-1 at 2. And Stolt points out that when Mr. Maturin appeared for a
judgment debtor exam on June 3, 2025, he testified that Keith Marks was still a shareholder of Harbor
Dredging. ECF No. 212 and 212-1. Though Central Boat now replies that it has since confirmed that
no other individuals could act as representatives of Harbor Dredging such that it “intends to renew its
motion to appoint a receiver for Harbor Dredging[,]” Central Boat fails to suggest how this supports
continuing the discovery deadline and February 2026 trial. ECF No. 214.
25 ECF No. 212 at 8.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 8

7
discovery to Harbor Dredging—but remains in the same predicament (no discovery
from Harbor Dredging), having failed to diligently pursue the outstanding discovery
predicating its prior motion to continue and now the instant one.26 Even if the Court
assumes arguendo that it is Central Boat that will be prejudiced by its inability to
propound discovery on Harbor Dredging and that a continuance may alleviate in
some minor fashion that prejudice,27 Central Boat fails to persuade the Court how
such self-inflicted prejudice could be alleviated or how it outweighs the prejudice Stolt
would suffer if another continuance is granted. Furthermore, given that Central Boat
failed to promptly seek the very discovery it insists necessitates a continuance, and
now claims that it will be unable to obtain that discovery regardless of any
continuance, Central Boat fails to indicate what a continuance will achieve (beyond
delay).
The Court “must have the power to control [its] docket[] by holding litigants to
a schedule.” Shepherd ex rel Est. of Shepherd v. City of Shreveport, 920 F.3d 278, 288
(5th Cir. 2019); accord, e.g., S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315
F.3d 533, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2003) (affirming district court’s denial of continuance
request that would have “unnecessarily delay[ed]” trial). Central Boat fails to
demonstrate good cause to support a continuance of any deadlines or the bench trial.
Though it obtained a prior continuance more than one year ago, Central Boat waited
26 Central Boat focuses on the fact “that Maturin had been incapacitated in August 2025 . . .
but appeared to be improving before his untimely passing.” ECF No. 214. But this focus on August
2025—when the twice extended discovery deadline expired—fails to account for why this “critical”
discovery had not been sought before the deadline (again) expired.
27 This premise is undermined by Central Boat’s reply which effectively concedes that there is
no individual who could act as a representative of Harbor Dredging. ECF No. 214.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 8

8
until the eve of the twice-extended discovery deadline to attempt to schedule the
deposition it claims it needed (and now can never take). The Court is not persuaded
that granting the relief Central Boat seeks—which includes continuing a bench trial
scheduled to begin in nearly three months—is warranted; rather, it appears that
granting any such relief would be futile.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Central Boat Rental, Inc.’s motion28 to
continue the trial date and certain pre-trial discovery deadlines is DENIED without
prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of November, 2025.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 ECF No. 207.
Case 2:23-cv-02861-BSL-EJD Document 222 Filed 11/10/25 Page 8 of 8