govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-01559-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
IN THE MATTER OF CROSBY DREDGING, LLC, 
ET AL. 
CIVIL ACTION 
 NO. 25-1559 
c/w 25-1560 
 SECTION: “G”(4) 
 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 
Before the Court are Alexander Yiannopoulos’s (“Yiannopoulos”) Motions for Leave to 
File Briefs of Amicus Curiae.1 In the motions, Yiannopoulos seeks leave to file amicus briefs2 in 
these consolidated declaratory judgment and limitation of liability actions filed by 
Plaintiff/Petitioner Crosby Dredging, LLC (“Crosby Dredging”). 3 Yiannopoulos’s proposed 
amicus briefs offer “four observations for the Court’s consideration in the course of the continued 
administration of” the limitation of liability action4 and develop five grounds allegedly “sufficient 
for dismissal [of the declaratory judgment action] under Brillhart/Wilton.”5 
On July 29, 2025, Crosby Dredging filed a limitation of liability action, Case No. 25-1559, 
In the Matter of Crosby Tugs, LLC, et al. , and a declaratory judgment action Case No. 25-1560, 
Crosby Dredging, LLC v. Sarradet .6 On March 24, 2026, th e Court granted the parties ’ Joint 
 
1 Rec. Docs. 20, 22. 
2 Rec. Docs. 20-1, 22-1, 22-2. 
3 Rec. Docs. 20, 22. 
4 Rec. Doc. 20-1 at 8. 
5 Rec. Doc. 22-1 at 18 (citing Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 494–95 (1942); Wilton v. 
Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287 (1995)). 
6 Rec. Doc. 1; Case No. 25-1560 (Rec. Doc. 1). 

 
 
2 
Motion to Consolidate the cases.7 On March 25, 2026, the Court stayed and administratively closed 
the cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), due to a pending bankruptcy proceeding filed by Crosby 
Dredging.8 
“The privilege of being heard amicus rests solely within the discretion of the court.” 9 The 
Fifth Circuit has noted that “[w]hether to permit a nonparty to submit a brief, as amicus curiae, is, 
with immaterial exceptions, a matter of judicial grace.” 10 Having reviewed the amicus briefs, the 
Court finds they would be neither useful nor helpful to the Court in the administration of this 
matter, especially considering that th ese consolidated cases are presently stayed and 
administratively closed. Yiannopoulos has no standing to open this closed ca se. Therefore, the 
Court denies the Yiannopoulos’s motions for leave to file amicus briefs. Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Yiannopoulos’s Motions for Leave to File Briefs of 
Amicus Curiae11 are DENIED. 
 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ______ day of June, 2026. 
 
 ________________________________ 
 NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
7 Case No. 25-1560 (Rec. Docs. 9, 10). 
8 Rec. Doc. 18. 
9 United States v. Davis, 180 F. Supp. 2d 797, 800 (E.D. La. 2001) (Berrigan, J.), writ granted, cause 
remanded, 285 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2002). 
10 In re Halo Wireless, Inc., 684 F.3d 581, 596 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. 
Scheidler, 223 F.3d 615, 616 (7th Cir. 2000)). 
11 Rec. Docs. 20, 22. 
1st

Passage view · GavelSight