As Chris Brown’s dog attack lawsuit moves closer to trial, his attorneys are pushing to keep the proceedings tightly centered on the alleged incident itself. The singer’s legal team has asked the court to exclude references to past controversies, arguing that unrelated history could cloud a jury’s judgment. Their position is straightforward: the case should hinge on the facts of one encounter, not on Brown’s public reputation. Whether the judge agrees could shape the tone of the trial.
According to Rolling Out, Brown recently filed a motion seeking to prevent Patricia Avila and her daughter, Maria Avila, from referencing his 2009 assault case involving Rihanna. That case concluded years ago, with Brown completing probation, community service, and counseling after pleading guilty. His attorneys argue that reopening that chapter offers no legal relevance to the current civil dispute. They maintain that introducing it would risk unfair prejudice rather than clarify liability.
The lawsuit itself stems from allegations by Maria Avila, who claims she was seriously injured after being attacked by Brown’s dog, Hades. Court filings describe lasting harm, including nerve damage, facial disfigurement, and partial vision loss, with surgery potentially required. The severity of those injuries has drawn significant attention to the case. Brown’s team, however, disputes claims of negligence.
Brown’s defense leans on reports and procedural focus as trial nears
In support of their defense, Brown’s lawyers cite an Animal Control report documenting an immediate response after the incident. Officer Angela Hooks noted that Brown and a security guard reacted quickly when Avila screamed. The defense also asserts that the dog had no known history of aggression. They further argue that Avila ignored security warnings about approaching the animal without supervision.
The case unfolds as Brown faces other legal developments. A separate $500 million lawsuit he filed against Warner Bros. and Ample was recently dismissed. In that matter, Judge Colin Leis ruled that a docuseries examining Brown’s past relied on documented legal records and fell within protected reporting.
As the dog attack lawsuit heads toward trial, Brown’s legal strategy is becoming increasingly clear. His attorneys are aiming to keep jurors focused on the specific allegations before them. The court’s rulings in the coming weeks will determine how narrowly that focus can be maintained.
Leave a Reply