Chris Brown and ex-housekeeper seek to find settlement in long-running legal battle
Chris Brown is attempting to avoid a trial and settling his long-running lawsuit with his former housekeeper, who alleged she was attacked by his dog in 2020.
Chris Brown is attempting to avoid a trial and settling his long-running lawsuit with his former housekeeper.
The 'Run It' hitmaker was sued back in 2021 for $71 million in damages by Maria Aliva over an alleged "vicious and brutal" attack from his dog while she was working at his California home in December 2020 and though they were due to face off in court on 30 September this year, both the singer and his ex-employee have asked for the date to be pushed back.
According to documents obtained by RadarOnline.com both parties have "recently expressed a desire to attend a mediation in the Summer of 2024."
The documents added: "Before the parties continue spending litigation resources on finishing up party depositions and third-party witness’s depositions, the parties would prefer to reserve those resources toward attempting to settle this lawsuit at mediation in the near future.
"The parties hereby are requesting a short trial continuance and extending the trial date out about four (4) months to alleviate the parties need to meet their discovery obligations based on the existing trial date."
The woman has claimed the 34-year-old singer's Caucasian Orvchake/Caucasian Shepherd dog named Hades came out of nowhere while she was taking out the trash and "savagely" bit her face, arms and body, leading to chunks of her skin being ripped out.
The housekeeper alleged she was left laying in a pool of her own blood while listening to Chris telling his security guards to remove the dog from the property.
She claimed she feared her life was over on the day in question and is seeking damages for emotional distress and to cover the cost of her medical bills.
However, the 'Loyal' hitmaker and his legal team argued the housekeeper's injuries were caused by her own behaviour, claiming she had
"voluntarily teased, abused, and mistreated the dog and thereby provoked the attack.”
His lawyer wrote in court documents: “[Doe] invited the injuries now complained of and assumed the risk of them with full knowledge of the magnitude of that risk, in that she knew her foregoing conduct might cause the dog to attack her, and seriously injure her, both of which events are alleged to have occurred."
A judge has yet to rule on the request to postpone the trial.
