At a hearing held June 5, 2026, Judge Steve Cochran overruled a demurrer filed by Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, and Marilyn Manson Records, Inc., and denied a related motion to strike portions of Walters' Third Amended Complaint. The ruling means that Walters' lawsuit survives another legal challenge and that Warner must now file a formal answer to the complaint within twenty days. According to the court's minute order, Judge Cochran accepted certain documents or records that the defendants asked the court to consider, and rejected the plaintiff's argument against doing so, and ultimately concluded that the allegations were sufficient to move forward at this stage of the proceedings. The ruling follows months of litigation surrounding whether Walters' claims can proceed under California's recently enacted Assembly Bill 250 (AB 250), which took effect on January 1, 2026. The law created a temporary revival window allowing certain previously time-barre...
May 9 - Anti-SLAPP Rulings Revealed and Why Marilyn Manson Has a Strong Case for an Appeal Anti-SLAPP laws work by putting more burden than usual on defamed plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In California, the reason strict anti-SLAPP laws exist is because they have so many cases to go through, and it helps to alleviate the pressure of the courts by making cases less time consuming by eliminating certain aspects of a claim before they go to discovery. The major drawback of this is that a plaintiff must enter the case with all their evidence in hand when it comes to defamation claims even before discovery can be conducted. Thus, it makes it almost impossible for a defamation claim to pass into the discovery portion of the case unless the unquestionable evidence already clearly exists. In some cases, like Manson's, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim can also be part of the anti-SLAPP. Summary of the...