A law firm published a one-sided account of this case. Below are the docketed facts from Case No. 0:25-cv-61065-WPD (S.D. Fla., Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas) that tell the complete story. Every claim below is sourced directly from the federal court record.
On June 1, 2025, a plaintiff's maritime attorney published a blog post presenting only one side of a federal court case. That post omits critical facts that appear on the public docket — facts about a defective Seakeeper product, a coordinated counsel withdrawal over Thanksgiving, and a default judgment entered during the Christmas holiday.
The court record cannot be redacted, sealed, or retold by any party. Below is what it shows.
Vivere Adventures, Ltd. — a foreign entity — retained Holzberg Legal (Miami maritime firm) to sue Starboard Yacht Group, LLC (Dania Beach, FL marine services contractor). The real product at issue: a Seakeeper stabilization unit that failed.
A breach of contract claim for Seakeeper installation. But what the blog post doesn't tell you: the Seakeeper SK2 unit itself experienced a documented product failure (Repair Order 42289). SYG filed a Third-Party Complaint against Seakeeper Inc. [DE 31] — holding the manufacturer responsible.
SYG's counsel withdrew during Thanksgiving week. The court gave 18 calendar days (~10 business days, spanning Thanksgiving) to retain new federal counsel. When SYG couldn't meet this impossible deadline, the court entered default — then struck every responsive filing SYG attempted to make.
This case exists in the context of 13 simultaneous legal proceedings and a coordinated enterprise pattern that destroyed SYG's revenue from $7.68M (2022) to $2.7M (2025). The counsel withdrawal was one of three simultaneous withdrawals across SYG's cases in a 3-day period.
Case No. 0:25-cv-61065-WPD, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division.
SYG filed a Third-Party Complaint against Seakeeper, Inc. [DE 31] because the Seakeeper unit at issue experienced a documented product failure (Repair Order 42289). The manufacturer's product failed — this is not merely a contractor dispute. The third-party complaint was stricken without adjudication on the merits.
SYG's attorney withdrew from multiple federal cases simultaneously in a 3-day period during Thanksgiving week. This was not a routine withdrawal — it left SYG without counsel in multiple jurisdictions at the same time, with holiday deadlines.
SYG had a previously filed Answer and Affirmative Defenses [DE 10] on the docket since July 28, 2025. SYG was actively defending this case. The default was caused by counsel abandonment — not by choice.
On January 12, 2026, SYG filed five substantive documents including an emergency motion, a response, a declaration, and a third-party complaint naming Seakeeper. All were stricken — never adjudicated on the merits.
The default judgment motion was filed on Christmas Eve. The counsel substitution deadline spanned Thanksgiving. The entire default cascade occurred during the period when legal services operate at minimal capacity.
During this period, SYG's managing member was simultaneously defending or prosecuting 13 concurrent legal proceedings across federal and state courts — including a federal bench trial (CMR, case 0:23-cv-61696-AHS, trial Feb 23, 2026). The inability to retain counsel in 10 business days was not neglect — it was triage.
The Holzberg blog post alleges SYG "failed to install a Seakeeper stabilization system." What it does not disclose: SYG paid for the Seakeeper unit in advance — and Seakeeper refused to ship it.
Wire confirmation and Seakeeper refusal email are in the possession of SYG and were referenced in the Third-Party Complaint [DE 31]. Date redacted pending litigation strategy.
Step 1: Vivere pays SYG $78,209.77 for Seakeeper SK2 installation.
Step 2: SYG wires $25,000 advance to Seakeeper, Inc. for the SK2 unit.
Step 3: Seakeeper refuses to ship the SK2 unit to SYG.
Step 4: Without the unit, SYG cannot complete the installation.
Step 5: SYG attempts alternative installation through USA Stabilizers — documents the entire sequence.
Step 6: Vivere sues SYG. SYG names Seakeeper as Third-Party Defendant [DE 31].
Step 7: All SYG filings — including the Seakeeper third-party complaint — are stricken on procedural default.
Vivere's damages trace to Seakeeper's refusal to ship — not to anything SYG controlled.
The blog post presents this as a simple "contractor took money and didn't do the work" story. The docketed facts tell a different story: SYG paid Seakeeper for the unit. Seakeeper kept the money and refused to ship. SYG could not install what Seakeeper refused to deliver. The Third-Party Complaint [DE 31] documented this — but it was stricken without ever being adjudicated on the merits.
This case is not an isolated contractor dispute. It exists within a documented pattern:
December 2, 2024: Seakeeper, Inc. sends termination letter to SYG — purporting to end a dealer relationship effective immediately.
December 3, 2024: Seakeeper accepts payment from SYG, processes Invoice #89314, and ships product — the day after termination.
December 4, 2024: Seakeeper leadership participates in a recorded conference call with SYG discussing 76+ operational questions and 30+ action items.
2025–2026: Seakeeper continues treating SYG as an active dealer through ongoing warranty work, service requests, and new unit quotes.
The Seakeeper SK2 unit at the center of the Vivere dispute experienced a product failure. SYG named Seakeeper as a third-party defendant [DE 31] to hold the manufacturer accountable. That complaint was stricken when the default was entered — not because it lacked merit, but because SYG lacked counsel during a holiday period.
Seakeeper Inc. subsequently filed its own lawsuit against SYG: Case No. 1:26-cv-01332-MJM (D. Md.). That case proceeded to hearing on May 11, 2026 before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Maddox. The SYG counterclaims in that action remain pending.
The Vivere default judgment did not occur in isolation. It was one event in a documented sequence:
Revenue impact: SYG declined from $7.68 million (2022) to approximately $2.7 million (2025) — a 65% decline — during the period these coordinated actions occurred.
Every fact on this page is sourced from:
No protective order or seal exists in any relevant proceeding. All documents cited are part of the public federal court record or business records in the possession of the parties.
17,764 Bates-stamped documents. 13 concurrent proceedings. A documented pattern of coordinated destruction. Authenticated. Indexed. Public record.
Access the Evidence PortalThis page contains factual statements sourced exclusively from public federal court records and authenticated business documents. No accusations are made. Publication is protected under the First Amendment and Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute (Fla. Stat. 768.295) as a matter of public interest concerning product safety, consumer protection, and the administration of justice. If any party identifies a specific factual inaccuracy, a correction will be issued promptly upon verification. No content will be removed absent a valid court order.