Order striking filing

Mirrored text

<a id="p1"></a>--- page 1 ---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 
Case No. 26-60289-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT 
 
SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
M/V SLOW UR ROLL II, a 2008 Everglades  
350LX Express, Official No. 1220768, HIN:  
RJDE0005I708, Together with all masts, boilers,  
cables, engines, machinery, etc., in rem, and  
STARBOARD YACHT GROUP LLC, a Florida  
limited liability company, in personam, 
 
Defendants. 
  / 
 
ORDER 
 
THIS CAUSE is before this Court on a Motion to Strike and a Renewed Motion to 
Strike filed by Plaintiff Seacoast National Bank .  ECF No s. 127; 142.  The Honorable 
William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Judge, referred these Motions to the 
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.  ECF No s. 123; 141; see 28 U.S.C . § 
636(b); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 1.   H aving reviewed the Motions, the Responses, applicable 
law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises , it is hereby ORDERED that the 
Motions are GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. 
BACKGROUND 
This is an admiralty action brought by Plaintiff Seacoast National Bank against 
Defendant M/V Slow UR Roll II and Defendant Starboard Yacht Group LLC.  ECF No. 63.  
Charles Jacob Stratmann, who is proceeding pro se, previously sought to intervene in 
this case as “the sole member, sole manager, and sole personal guarantor” of Starboard 
Case 0:26-cv-60289-WPD   Document 146   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2026   Page 1 of 5

<a id="p2"></a>--- page 2 ---
2 
Yacht Group LLC.  ECF No. 17 at 2.  The district judge in this case denied Stratmann’s 
motion to intervene.  ECF No. 30.  
The district judge has struck multiple filings by Stratmann throughout this litigation.  
In doing so, he stated that “to the extent Stratmann seeks to represent either named 
defendant, it is a well-settled principle of law that a corporation cannot appear pro se and 
must be represented by counsel. ”  ECF No. 15 at 2.  The district judge found that 
“Stratmann lacks standing to file claim of interest pursuant to Supplemental Rule C, 
because only ‘a person who asserts a right of possession or any ownership interest in the 
property that is the subject of the action’ has standing to file a claim of interest.”  ECF No. 
53 at 1 (citations omitted).  He expressly warned Stratmann that “[a] ny future filings on 
behalf of Defendant(s) must be filed by counsel or will otherwise be automatically 
stricken.”  ECF No. 61 at 1.   Nevertheless, Stratmann has continued to file various 
motions, objections, and responses in this litigation.  He has purported to appear as an 
individual “claimant/party-in-interest” since July 20, 2026.  ECF No. 116 at 2. 
The Court resolved the merits issues of this case when it  entered a final default 
judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 1  ECF No. 70.   Afterwards, Plaintiff moved for an award of 
attorney’s fees and a bill of costs.  ECF No s. 120; 122.  Stratmann filed an opposition to 
Plaintiff’s fees and costs motions.  ECF No. 125.  Plaintiff promptly moved to strike that 
opposition.  ECF No. 127.  Later, Stratmann filed another objection.  ECF Nos. 136; 137.  
Plaintiff renewed its motion to strike.  ECF No. 142.   The matter is now fully briefed and 
ripe for determination.  
 
1 Stratmann attempted to vacate the default judgment  but was unsuccessful.  See ECF 
No. 118 (denying various emergency motions brought to challenge default judgment and 
judicial sale of marine vessel). 
Case 0:26-cv-60289-WPD   Document 146   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2026   Page 2 of 5

<a id="p3"></a>--- page 3 ---
3 
DISCUSSION 
Plaintiff now asks this Court to strike both Stratmann’s opposition and objection to 
the fees and costs motions.  Plaintiff asserts that “Stratmann is not the party against whom 
the requested fee-and-cost award is sought.”  ECF No. 127 at 3.  Plaintiff’s motions boil 
down to a straightforward argument: “Stratmann has no standing to object to costs taxed 
against [Starboard Yacht Group LLC] for the same reasons this Court has articulated 
throughout this litigation: he is not a party, he cannot represent [Starboard Yacht Group 
LLC], and his individual claims have been dismissed or stricken. ”  ECF No. 1 42 at 2.   
Plaintiff characterizes Stratmann’s filings as “another procedurally improper attempt to 
inject himself into this litigation.”  ECF No. 127 at 1. 
In opposition, Stratmann argues that “non-party status does not eliminate standing 
to oppose a fee motion directed at one’s own conduct.”  ECF No. 144 at 2.  Stratmann 
contends that Plaintiff “cannot use Stratmann’s individual filings to enlarge the [attorney’s 
fees and costs] request and then treat him as a stranger to the amount.”  Id. 
The undersigned agrees with Plaintiff that Stratmann does not have any authority 
to represent Starboard Yacht Group LLC.  “[A]  corporation is an artificial entity that can 
act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel. ”  
Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp. , 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) .  In a different case, 
another district judge from this Court noted that Stratmann “has repeatedly been told” that 
he may not file pro se on behalf of Starboard Yacht Group LLC .  Starboard Yacht Grp . 
LLC v. Contessa Marine Rsch., LLC, No. 23-61696-CIV-SINGHAL, 2026 WL 482679, at 
*1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2026).  Stratmann does not argue otherwise, but it appears that 
he did not take that admonishment to heart.  
Case 0:26-cv-60289-WPD   Document 146   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2026   Page 3 of 5

<a id="p4"></a>--- page 4 ---
4 
As to Stratmann’s argument, i t is true that Plaintiff’s fees motion references his 
filings as a basis for its fee award.  For example, Plaintiff argues  that “while 141.9 hours 
may seem high for a case that ultimately resulted in default, the hours expended and fees 
incurred were substantially increased by the conduct of non- party Charles Jacob 
Stratmann, who has pursued a relentless campaign of meritless, frivolous, and harassing 
litigation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the orderly administration of this case. ”  
ECF No. 122 at 9.  But that alone does not mean it is proper for Stratmann, a non- party, 
to oppose the Motions.  See United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc. , 
599 U.S. 419, 430 (2023) (“[N]on-parties typically cannot do much of anything in a 
lawsuit.”).  Any fees and costs judgment would be entered  against the named corporate 
defendants only—not Stratmann himself—so Stratmann’s opposition to the entry of that 
judgment would be a prohibited action taken pro se in defense of another’s interest. 
On the record before the undersigned, Stratmann lacks an independent basis upon 
which to oppose Plaintiff’s fees and costs motions.  “[I]ntervention is the requisite method 
for a nonparty to become a party to a lawsuit ,” and Stratmann already failed to meet his 
burden in a motion to intervene.  United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 
New York, 556 U.S. 928, 933 (2009).  Stratmann poses no legitimate reason to allow late-
game intervention now.  And Stratmann does not provide any legal authority supporting 
his assertion that he has “standing to oppose a fee motion directed at one’s own conduct.”  
ECF No. 144 at 2.  For all of these reasons,  Plaintiff’s motions to strike are due to be 
granted.  
Case 0:26-cv-60289-WPD   Document 146   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2026   Page 4 of 5

<a id="p5"></a>--- page 5 ---
5 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 
1. The Motion to Strike, ECF No. 127, is GRANTED. 
2. The Renewed Motion to Strike, ECF No. 142, is GRANTED. 
3. The following docket entries filed by Charles Jacob Stratmann are STRICKEN 
from the record: 
a. Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non-
Taxable Costs, ECF No. 125; 
b. Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non-
Taxable Costs, ECF No. 133; 
c. Objection to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, ECF No. 136; and 
d. Notice of Errata and Filing of Corrected Exhibit B, ECF No. 137. 
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of October 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________ 
PATRICK M. HUNT  
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
 
Copies furnished to:  
The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas 
Counsel of record 
Case 0:26-cv-60289-WPD   Document 146   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2026   Page 5 of 5