Chris Brown Fighting To Leave Rihanna Out Of Dog Attack Lawsuit

Chris Brown is seeking to management the narrative as finest he can as a trial for his canine assault lawsuit approaches. Per Rolling Out, the singer’s crew filed a courtroom order to ban Patricia and Maria Avila from mentioning his checkered previous with Rihanna. The motion additionally seems to be to bar their authorized counsel and any potential witnesses from doing so.

They are doing this as a precaution, as Brown’s reps consider the opposition would attempt to revisit it. Particularly, they’re making an attempt to keep away from the 2009 assault ordeal. The “Look At Me Now” artist plead responsible to felony assault, served 5 years of probation, and took part in neighborhood service and necessary counseling.

They’re arguing that incidents this way back should not be used towards him in courtroom. Brown and his crew want to hold the discussions in courtroom to the alleged canine assault and nothing extra.

Speaking of which, Maria Avila is the ex-housekeeper who was allegedly mauled by the star’s pet, Hades. She has additionally claimed that she wanted rapid surgical procedure and is coping with everlasting bodily damages. The latter allegedly contains disfigurement, nerve harm, and partial blindness.

In May 2025, Chris Brown fought back towards different claims that he did nothing to help Maria afterwards. They filed a press release from Animal Control Officer Angela Hooks. In her report, Brown and a safety guard jumped into motion proper after they heard screams.

Lastly, they argued that Hades was a really pleasant canine, however that Maria additionally ignored clear warnings from safety employees about avoiding unsupervised contact with him.

But this is not all Brown is having to deal with legally. Earlier this month, he realized that his $500 swimsuit towards Warner Bros. and it is manufacturing home, Ample, had been tossed. He was accusing them of issuing false and defamatory claims about his authorized historical past in a docuseries.

Judge Colin Leis made the ruling, primarily saying the exact opposite. “The courtroom has personally seen your entire documentary. The documentary recites a lot of the inconsistencies plaintiff notes, together with the existence of the textual content messages. Media defendants thus introduced a ‘honest and true’ report of [the woman’s] statements and the judicial document and proceedings.”