Chris Brown seeks to exclude Rihanna assault from dog bite trial in Los Angeles
Chris Brown asks court to block Rihanna assault mention in dog bite case as trial set for June

Chris Brown is seeking to prevent any reference to his 2009 felony assault of Rihanna during an upcoming dog bite trial in Los Angeles, according to new court filings.
The case centres on a lawsuit filed by housekeeper Maria Avila, who alleges she was seriously injured by a dog at Brown’s Tarzana home in December 2020. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 15.
In a recent motion, Brown’s legal team asked a judge to exclude any mention of the assault involving Rihanna. However, Avila’s legal representatives have opposed the request, describing it in filings as “overbroad, premature, and legally incorrect.”
They argue that the request attempts to limit potential evidence without considering how it may be relevant during trial proceedings. The filing states that references to past conduct may be necessary if testimony presents Brown as nonviolent or challenges the credibility of the plaintiff.
Avila alleges she was attacked while taking out rubbish, claiming the dog caused severe injuries to her face and arm. She said she required emergency surgery and continues to experience long-term effects, including disfigurement and vision loss.
Brown has disputed aspects of the account. In deposition testimony, he said he found Avila on the ground after hearing his dog and stated that he checked whether she was breathing before securing the animals and alerting others. He also said he left the scene after being advised that paramedics were on the way.
The incident involving Rihanna in 2009 resulted in Brown pleading guilty to felony assault and receiving probation, community labour, and mandatory counselling.
Arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence are expected to be addressed at a final hearing scheduled for June 5, ahead of the trial.


















COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ