Chris Brown is taking steps to tightly control what jurors hear as his dog attack lawsuit heads toward trial.
As reported by Rolling Out, Brown’s legal team has filed a motion requesting that plaintiffs Patricia Avila and Maria Avila, along with their attorneys and any witnesses, be barred from mentioning his past relationship with Rihanna during court proceedings. The move appears to be a preemptive strike, with Brown’s camp believing the opposing side may attempt to introduce his past legal troubles to influence the jury.
Specifically, the singer is aiming to keep the 2009 assault case involving Rihanna out of the courtroom. Brown pled guilty to felony assault at the time and completed probation, community service, and mandatory counseling. His attorneys argue that an incident from more than a decade ago has no relevance to the current civil case and would unfairly prejudice jurors.
https://twitter.com/usweekly/status/
The upcoming trial centers on allegations made by Maria Avila, a former housekeeper who claims she was severely injured by Brown’s dog, Hades. According to Avila, the attack required immediate surgery and left her with lasting physical damage, including disfigurement, nerve injury, and partial blindness.
Brown has pushed back strongly against those claims. In May 2025, his team submitted a statement from Angela Hooks, an Animal Control Officer who reported that Brown and a security guard rushed to help immediately after hearing screams. His attorneys have also maintained that Hades was typically friendly and that Avila ignored explicit warnings from security staff not to interact with the dog without supervision.
The dog attack lawsuit is not the only legal issue on Brown’s plate. Earlier this month, a judge dismissed his $500 million defamation lawsuit against Warner Bros. and production company Ample, which stemmed from a docuseries examining his legal history.
In his ruling, Judge Colin Leis stated that the documentary presented a fair and accurate account of court records and public statements. After reviewing the full project, the judge concluded that the media companies did not act improperly or misleadingly.
With the dog attack trial approaching, Brown’s legal strategy is clear: keep the focus narrowly on the incident at hand and prevent his past from becoming part of the courtroom narrative once again.
