Nicola Peltz has reportedly avoided being questioned under oath after her billionaire father, Nelson Peltz, quietly settled a lawsuit brought by a former housekeeper who claimed she was repeatedly attacked by the family’s pit bull. The lawsuit, which was originally filed in December 2024, accused the animal of violently attacking Morejon multiple times while she was working at the property.

Nelson Peltz Quietly Settles Dog Attack Lawsuit Filed By Former Housekeeper

According to court documents obtained by the Daily Mail, housekeeper Mileydis Morejon sued the 83-year-old businessman over alleged incidents involving the dog, Houdini, at the family’s massive Palm Beach, Florida, estate in 2023.

Morejon claimed one terrifying encounter allegedly forced her to defend herself with a dust stick before hiding inside a room to escape the dog. In another alleged incident, she said Houdini tore at her pants during an attack.

After nearly 18 months in court, the case was quietly resolved when Morejon’s attorneys filed a notice of settlement on April 30 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. The lawsuit was officially dismissed on May 5. While Morejon was reportedly seeking more than $75,000 in damages, the exact terms of the settlement remain confidential.

Nicola Peltz Was Expected To Testify Before Settlement

Nicola, who is married to Brooklyn Beckham, had reportedly been listed as a witness in the case and was expected to sit for a video deposition before the matter was resolved.

Court filings stated that the actress allegedly had “knowledge of the subject incident,” though it remains unclear whether she witnessed any of the alleged attacks firsthand or learned about them through her parents, Nelson and Claudia Peltz.

The pit bull at the center of the lawsuit was reportedly adopted by Nelson three years ago from Yogi’s House, the rescue organization Nicola co-founded. At the time, Nicola shared an emotional Instagram post celebrating the adoption. “This video makes me want to cry. My dad adopted Houdini, @itsyogishouse. This is their first night as a family,” she wrote.

Housekeeper Claimed Dog Attacks Left Her Injured

According to the complaint, part of Morejon’s responsibilities included cleaning up after Houdini and interacting with the dog while working at the estate. During a deposition last year, Morejon confirmed that she did not directly communicate with the Peltz family and instead received instructions through M&M Security Inc., the company that employed her.

When asked if cleaning up after the dog was part of her duties, she responded, “Yes, yes.” Morejon alleged in her lawsuit that Houdini “had a vicious nature, a vicious disposition, and/or had a propensity to attack and/or attempt attacks which was known or should have been known” by the Peltz family.

She claimed the alleged attacks happened “without any provocation, suddenly and without warning.” The housekeeper also alleged she suffered injuries to her “back, neck, and both of her knees,” requiring “multiple pain-management procedures,” while accusing the defendants of failing to properly “secure, train, or supervise Houdini to prevent his attack.”

Nelson Peltz’s Legal Team Fought To Keep Wealth Out Of Trial

Throughout the legal battle, Nelson Peltz’s attorneys reportedly pushed to prevent details about his massive fortune from being introduced during trial proceedings. In court filings, his legal team argued that revealing his wealth could unfairly influence a jury under what is legally referred to as “deep pocket liability.”

“The reason the courts are so adamant about this rule is that jurors have a tendency to favor the poor as against the rich and, if provoked by such inflammatory evidence, the jury is likely to apply the deep pocket theory of liability,” the filing stated.

Peltz’s lawyers also argued that a “Beware of the Dog” sign posted at the property should shield the family from liability.

Nelson Peltz’s Legal Team Claimed Housekeeper Was Responsible For Her Own Safety

They further claimed Morejon was working as an independent contractor and that the defendants therefore had “no duty to protect” her from injuries sustained on the property. The defense additionally accused Morejon of changing parts of her account regarding how one of the alleged incidents unfolded.

Meanwhile, Morejon’s legal team argued she entered through a service entrance rather than the main entrance where the warning sign was located and claimed the defense’s motions were both “premature and substantively flawed” before the case ultimately settled privately.