A Los Angeles judge conditioned a new trial on damages unless Avila accepts a cut of the $12.9 million dog-bite award to $9.5 million. A remittitur condition is not a new liability verdict.

A remittitur or a damages-only new-trial condition does not retry whether Brown was liable under California’s dog-bite rules. It revisits the size of the civil award. On Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, TMZ reported that court papers show a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge found the jury’s roughly $12.9 million award to former housekeeper Maria Avila excessive for insufficient evidence of permanent nerve damage and the value assigned to future pain and suffering, and conditioned a new trial on damages unless she accepts $9.5 million. Rolling Stone had covered a Sept. 24 hearing in which Judge Huey P. Cotton signaled he was inclined to cut the award. Acceptance or a damages retrial is still ahead.

Avila sued after she said a large dog attacked her in December 2020 while she worked at Brown’s Tarzana home. A jury later awarded about $12.9 million. Brown had admitted negligence under the dog-bite statute before trial and contested the extent of damages. After the verdict, his lawyers sought a new trial, arguing the award was excessive and that jurors improperly heard about a prior felony conviction. Those post-trial motions are civil procedure. They are not a criminal case.

TMZ’s Tuesday report said the judge’s option is accept $9.5 million or face a new trial limited to damages. Rolling Stone’s Sept. 24 coverage described Cotton telling counsel the choice was retry damages or agree to the tentative reduction, and that Avila’s lawyer asked for a smaller cut. Until Avila accepts remittitur or a damages retrial is tried and entered, the path of the money judgment remains open. A judge’s damages condition is not a finding that the attack did not happen.