Chris Brown's Former Housekeeper Seeks Tour Profits After $13 Million Dog-Attack Verdict

Chris Brown’s former housekeeper is asking a court to help her collect nearly $13 million after a jury found the singer liable in a dog attack case.

Maria Avila, who sued Brown in 2021, was awarded $12.9 million by a Los Angeles-area jury on June 30 after she was mauled by a 200-pound Caucasian shepherd named Hades while cleaning outside Brown’s Tarzana, California, home in 2020. Her attorneys now say Brown and his company “have made no effort to satisfy any portion of the judgment.”

Avila’s attorney, Nancy Doumanian, said in a new filing that her side has repeatedly tried to discuss payment with Brown’s attorneys, but those messages have gone unanswered.

“At the same time, Defendant Christopher Brown is presently engaged in an active nationwide R&B concert tour that is generating substantial revenue,” Doumanian wrote.

Brown and Usher launched the R&B Tour, short for Raymond & Brown, on June 26, with stadium dates scheduled across North America. Avila is asking a judge to earmark part of Brown’s touring profits for the unpaid judgment and to freeze tour-related accounts while the issue is pending.

If those funds are not enough, Avila’s motion says the court could look at Brown's music royalties, licensing revenue, merchandising and sponsorship deals.

Avila alleged the attack left her with permanent facial disfigurement, scarring, vision loss and nerve damage.

Brown accepted some negligence liability before trial, but disputed the extent of Avila’s injuries and argued she was partially at fault. He testified that he had warned Avila the dogs on the property were “absolutely not” friendly and said Hades belonged to security guards.

Along with Avila’s judgment, her sister was separately awarded $885,000 for emotional distress, and her husband was awarded $50,000.

“Celebrity status doesn’t change the legal standard,” said Bobby Taghavi, Managing Partner at law firm Sweet James, who is not involved in the case.

“The key question is whether the homeowner knew or should have known the dog posed a foreseeable risk and whether reasonable steps were taken to protect lawful visitors,” he explained.

“Large verdicts are typically driven by the severity and permanence of the injuries,” Taghavi said.

“When a victim suffers permanent scarring, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, or emotional trauma, a jury may award significant damages not only for financial losses but also for the lasting impact those injuries have on the person’s life,” he added.

Taghavi noted that in some cases there may be post-trial motions and appeals to resolve before the judgment becomes enforceable.

“If payment still isn’t made voluntarily, the plaintiff can pursue post-judgment collection remedies, including identifying assets and seeking to garnish income where permitted by law,” he said. “At that point, the legal battle shifts from proving liability to enforcing the judgment.”