A Los Angeles jury awarded nearly $13 million to a housekeeper who was seriously injured in a dog attack at singer Chris Brown’s Tarzana home. But months later, the judge handling the case indicated that he may reduce the award substantially.
That raises a question many people do not realize exists:
If a jury decides how much an injured person should receive, how can a judge later change that number?
The answer involves an important California procedure called a remittitur.
What Happened in the Chris Brown Dog Bite Case?
The case stems from a 2020 attack involving a large dog at Chris Brown’s home in Tarzana.
Housekeeper Maria Avila alleged that she was violently attacked by Brown’s Caucasian shepherd while working at the property. According to reporting on the case, she suffered significant injuries to her face, arm and leg and required hospitalization.
A Los Angeles jury ultimately awarded Avila approximately $12.9 million in damages, including compensation related to medical expenses and emotional distress. Other members of her family also received separate awards.
The case involved claims including dog-bite liability and premises-related theories.
Later, however, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Huey P. Cotton indicated that he was considering reducing Avila’s award by close to 40 percent. According to reporting from Rolling Stone, the judge appeared inclined to substantially lower the jury’s damages award after post-trial arguments.
That does not necessarily mean the jury “got the case wrong.”
It means California law gives trial judges a limited ability to review damages awards after a verdict.
Can a Judge Really Change What a Jury Decided?
Yes, under certain circumstances.
After a civil trial, either side can file post-trial motions asking the judge to review aspects of the verdict.
One of those is a motion for a new trial.
California courts recognize several possible grounds for a new trial, including situations where damages are considered excessive or inadequate.
That is where a remittitur can come into play.
What Is a Remittitur?
A remittitur is essentially a conditional reduction of a jury’s damages award.
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 662.5, when a court concludes that the damages awarded by a jury are excessive and that a new trial on damages would otherwise be appropriate, the judge can conditionally order a new trial unless the plaintiff agrees to accept a lower amount.
In plain English, the judge can effectively say:
“I believe the jury’s award is too high. The plaintiff can accept a reduced amount, or we can have another trial on damages.”
That is different from a judge simply substituting a personal opinion for the jury’s verdict.
There is a legal procedure that must be followed.
Why Would a Judge Reduce a Jury’s Award?
A judge may consider whether the damages are supported by the evidence presented at trial.
California law provides that a new trial should not be granted merely because the judge personally would have awarded a different number.
Instead, when reviewing allegedly excessive damages, the court must weigh the evidence and determine whether the record demonstrates that the jury clearly should have reached a different result.
That can involve looking at issues such as:
- The severity and permanence of the injuries
- Past and future medical expenses
- Lost income or loss of earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Scarring or disfigurement
- The evidence presented by medical experts
- The relationship between the evidence and the amount awarded
This is especially significant in cases involving large awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and permanent disfigurement.
Does the Plaintiff Have to Accept the Reduction?
No.
That is one of the most important parts of the process.
If a judge conditionally grants a new trial because the damages are excessive and offers a remittitur, the plaintiff typically has a choice:
Accept the reduced award, or reject it and proceed with the new-trial process.
California’s court rules specifically recognize this type of conditional order. California Courts
So a judge is not simply taking money away from the plaintiff with no alternative.
The plaintiff may decide that accepting the reduced amount is preferable to enduring another trial, or may reject the reduction and continue litigating.
What About an Appeal?
Post-trial motions and appeals are two different things.
A trial judge can address certain issues immediately after the verdict through motions for a new trial or similar procedures.
An appeal, on the other hand, asks a higher court to review whether legal errors occurred in the trial court.
California Courts explains that parties may seek a new trial for reasons including excessive damages, insufficient evidence or procedural problems, while an appeal generally asks a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court made a legal error. Self Help Center
Large personal injury verdicts can therefore continue through several stages even after the jury announces its decision.
California Dog Bite Law Can Be Especially Strict
California is generally considered a strict-liability state for dog bites.
That means a dog owner can potentially be responsible for injuries caused by a bite even if the dog had never previously attacked anyone and the owner did not know the dog was dangerous.
But damages are still a separate question.
Even when liability is established or admitted, the parties can still vigorously dispute:
- How seriously the plaintiff was injured
- Whether certain treatment was necessary
- Whether symptoms are permanent
- Whether future treatment will be required
- How much pain and suffering is reasonable
- Whether claimed damages were actually caused by the incident
That distinction is important.
Winning on liability does not automatically determine how much the case is worth.
Why the Chris Brown Case Is Interesting
The Chris Brown case highlights something that surprises many people:
A jury verdict is enormously important, but it may not always be the final word.
After a verdict, lawyers can still argue over whether the award is legally supported by the evidence.
The judge can review those arguments.
A higher court may eventually review certain rulings.
And the parties may still negotiate a settlement rather than continue fighting through years of post-trial litigation and appeals.
That is why major verdict announcements often do not tell the entire story.
What This Means for California Personal Injury Cases
If you hear that a jury awarded someone $5 million, $10 million or $50 million, it does not necessarily mean that exact amount will ultimately be collected.
The defense may challenge the verdict.
The court may consider a new-trial motion.
A judge may propose a remittitur.
There may be an appeal.
Or the parties may reach a settlement while those issues are pending.
Personal injury litigation does not necessarily end when the jury walks out of the courtroom.
Sometimes, that is when the next phase begins.
Injured in California? Accident Pros Can Help.
At Accident Pros LLP, we represent people injured in car accidents, dangerous-property incidents, dog attacks and other serious personal injury cases throughout California.
We believe clients deserve straightforward answers about what their case may involve, without unnecessary legal jargon.
Nice Lawyers. Serious Results.
Accident Pros LLP
1-855-776-7557
GotCrash.com
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Court proceedings in the Chris Brown matter may continue, and post-trial rulings may change. Every personal injury case depends on its own facts and circumstances.
