Chris Brown Seeks to Block Mention of Rihanna Assault in Upcoming Dog-Bite Trial
Chris Brown is attempting to prevent any reference to his 2009 felony assault of former partner Rihanna from being introduced as evidence in an upcoming civil trial tied to a 2020 dog attack at his Los Angeles home. The request has been challenged by the plaintiff in the case, who argues the move is overly broad and legally unfounded.
In a recent court filing, Brown’s legal team asked a Los Angeles judge to exclude all mention of the widely publicized 2009 incident, in which Brown was arrested and later pleaded guilty to felony assault. Prosecutors at the time said he physically attacked Rihanna in a parked car hours before the Grammy Awards, alleging he punched, choked, and bit her, and made threats against her life. Brown ultimately avoided jail time, receiving five years of probation, 180 days of community labor, and mandatory participation in a domestic violence program.
The current case stems from a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Maria Avila, a housekeeper who claims she was severely injured by Brown’s dog at his Tarzana residence on Dec. 12, 2020. Avila alleges she was taking out the trash when a large dog, identified as a Caucasian Shepherd named Hades, attacked her without warning. According to her complaint, the dog inflicted serious injuries, tearing flesh and exposing bone in parts of her face and arm.
Avila’s legal team opposes Brown’s attempt to exclude references to the Rihanna assault, arguing in court filings that his request is “overbroad, premature, and legally incorrect.” They contend that Brown is attempting to preemptively block evidence that may become relevant depending on how testimony unfolds during the trial. The filing states that any mention of the prior assault would not be used to attack Brown’s character, but rather to respond if misleading statements arise during proceedings.
The trial, which has been delayed multiple times, is currently scheduled to begin on June 15, with a final status conference set for June 5, during which the judge is expected to hear arguments regarding what evidence will be admissible.
In addition to Avila’s claims, her sister, Patricia Avila, has filed a related lawsuit. She alleges she arrived at the scene to find her sister “covered in blood” and in distress following the attack.
Depositions submitted in court provide differing accounts of the incident. Brown testified that he was upstairs in his home when he heard the dog growling, prompting him to go downstairs. He said he found the housekeeper lying face down in the driveway. “I didn’t touch her,” Brown said under oath. “I bent down, and I looked. I was making sure she was breathing.” He added that he then secured the dogs and called for assistance.
Avila, in her own deposition from October 2023, described the attack as sudden and disorienting. “It attacked me on my face, my hand, and it pierced its teeth on my foot,” she said, noting that she did not initially see the dog but felt its force. She stated that she later required emergency surgery and now suffers from lasting injuries, including permanent disfigurement, nerve damage, and vision impairment.
A key point of dispute in the case involves Brown’s actions immediately after the attack. Avila alleges that he stood over her while speaking on the phone before leaving the scene, while Brown maintains he acted to ensure her safety and secure the situation. He testified that he later left only after being informed that paramedics were on the way.
Additional questions have been raised about what happened to the dog after the incident. According to court filings, the animal was removed from the property and transported to Humboldt County, where it was reportedly abandoned. Brown testified that he had no involvement in that decision.
The judge’s ruling on the admissibility is expected ahead of jury selection in mid-June.
