Brock v. City of Lebanon et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LISA BROCK, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Alexis Maki, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LEBANON, and
THE LEBANON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-02149-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Lisa Brock, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Alexis Maki, Deceased’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 12) and Motion to
Remand (Doc. 13). Plaintiff initially filed her complaint against Defendants City of Lebanon and
the Lebanon Police Department in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. Her complaint asserts four claims against Defendants: (1) a violation of the
Illinois Survival Act, (2) a violation of the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, (3) a violation of the
Illinois Domestic Violence Act, and (4) a deprivation of substantive due process under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendants timely removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
the complaint alleged a federal question. Now, Plaintiff filed a notice that voluntarily dismissed
her only federal claim—Count 4 of the complaint—without prejudice, and a motion that asks the
Court to remand this case. Defendants filed a response indicating they take no position on the
motion to remand (Doc. 14).
A. Notice of Dismissal
Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows dismissal by a plaintiff without court order at any time
Case 3:25-cv-02149-JPG Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The notice itself
effects immediate dismissal; no further action by the Court is necessary. Smith v. Potter, 513
F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2008). Defendants have not served an answer or motion for summary
judgment in this case. Because Plaintiff has an absolute right to dismiss at the present time, the
Court finds that Count 4 of the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
B. Motion to Remand
The Court had at the time of removal, and continues to have, jurisdiction over the
remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court
“may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all
claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” District courts have broad discretion in deciding
whether to decline jurisdiction over state law claims when no original jurisdiction claims remain
pending. RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 2012). In
making this decision, district courts are instructed to consider judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity. Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir.
1994) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Generally, “when the
district court dismisses all federal claims before trial, the usual and preferred course is to remand
the state claims to the state court unless there are countervailing considerations.” Payne for Hicks
v. Churchich, 161 F.3d 1030, 1043 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Wright, 29 F.3d at 1251).
After considering the relevant factors, including the fact that this case is in a very early
stage and involves questions of interpretation and application of state law, the Court has
determined that remand is proper. Therefore, it GRANTS Lisa Brock, as Special Administrator
of the Estate of Alexis Maki, Deceased’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 13) and REMANDS this case
Case 3:25-cv-02149-JPG Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 14, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02149-JPG Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>