On December 16th 2025, it was announced that the case of Ashley Walters (ex-assistant) brought against her former employer Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) through her second amended complaint on March 11th 2022, has been dismissed without prejudice. This is because on September 19th 2025, Marilyn Manson and Marilyn Manson Records, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and this Motion was granted on December 16th. Hence the jury trial which was scheduled for the 26th of January will no longer take place. According to court documents, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted for three reasons: 1. “There is no triable issue of material fact.” The court is saying: Even if we look at the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, there is nothing a jury needs to decide because the key facts are either undisputed or legally irrelevant. Meaning: The dispute is purely legal, not factual — and the law favors the defendants. 2. “Plaintiff’s claims are time barred.” The court is saying:...
On May 9, 2023, Judge Teresa Beaudet did not find Marilyn Manson "demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his IIED [infliction of emotional distress] claim based on Wood ‘recruiting, coordinating, and pressuring multiple women to make false accusations against Warner and to be part of their film project.’" She also declared Evan's and Ilma Gore’s comments about Groupie to be a “protected activity.” To this ruling, Manson’s attorney, Howard King, described the ruling as “disappointing but not unexpected.”
“The Court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline,” King told Rolling Stone. “The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the Court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal,” he added.
Judge Baudet, who complained and apologized that she was "exhausted" while writing this 34-page tentative ruling, set a tentative trial date for May 1, 2024. However, because Manson is appealing this ruling, this date will likely be pushed back more than a year.
On July 7th it was revealed that Evan is seeking compensation from Manson to pay her six figure attorney fees, since he lost the Anti-SLAPP. According to court documents, Evan asked the court to award her $346,470 to reimburse her attorney fees, plus another $9,193 in costs, another $22k for preparing the current motion and another $10k she expects to spend in the future. The grand total comes to $387,813.67. The hearing for this was scheduled on January 26th. Illma Gore requested that Manson pay her lawyer's fees as well for losing the Anti-SLAPP. Gore was asking for about $204,485 and the hearing on her motion was set for February 1, but was then rescheduled to February 15th.
Though a few media sources reported the story about the attorney's fees, they largely remained silent about it.
However, when the hearing concerning the legal fees for Evan took place on January 26th, and it was ruled that Evan's fees were to be reduced to $326,956 after Manson succeeded in getting it reduced more than $60,000, many media sources decided, more than five months after the original legal fees ruling, to pick up this story, and spun it as a major loss for Manson, even though the loss took place five months earlier and this time he actually had a win.
The same thing took place with Illma Gore's legal fee ruling after her February 15th hearing. Rolling Stone finally reported on this issue, and spun the story with the headline "Marilyn Manson Now Owes Nearly $500,000 to Defendants’ Lawyers After Failed Claims", even though that ruling took place nearly six months ago. This latest ruling awarded Illma Gore $169,408, even though she originally asked for $204,485, which means on February 15th Manson succeeded in reducing her legal fees by more than $35,000.
In the Rolling Stone article, we are also told the following:
"Warner is appealing the anti-SLAPP motion ruling. He believes his team 'uncovered evidence of malicious intent to ruin his career' and that the fees awarded to Wood and Gore ultimately will be waived, a source close to the case tells Rolling Stone."
Rolling Stone also says: "A trial is set for May 1." NME says: "A trial is set for May 1 this year."
NME was even more misleading in its headline: "Marilyn Manson ordered to pay even more legal fees totalling $500,000".
Both Rolling Stone and NME in their headlines make it sound as if Manson now owes Evan and Illma more money than what was ruled six months ago, manipulating the numbers by totaling the two, when in fact he successfully brought down the amount in these two most recent hearings, saving himself nearly $100,000 from what was originally ruled, because it was found both Evan and Illma added a significant amount of charges that should not have been there. Furthermore, while a tentative trial date is set for May 1st 2024, we have already been informed that this will not happen, since an appeal is being made to overturn the recent rulings.
“The Court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline,” King told Rolling Stone. “The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the Court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal,” he added.
Judge Baudet, who complained and apologized that she was "exhausted" while writing this 34-page tentative ruling, set a tentative trial date for May 1, 2024. However, because Manson is appealing this ruling, this date will likely be pushed back more than a year.
On July 7th it was revealed that Evan is seeking compensation from Manson to pay her six figure attorney fees, since he lost the Anti-SLAPP. According to court documents, Evan asked the court to award her $346,470 to reimburse her attorney fees, plus another $9,193 in costs, another $22k for preparing the current motion and another $10k she expects to spend in the future. The grand total comes to $387,813.67. The hearing for this was scheduled on January 26th. Illma Gore requested that Manson pay her lawyer's fees as well for losing the Anti-SLAPP. Gore was asking for about $204,485 and the hearing on her motion was set for February 1, but was then rescheduled to February 15th.
Though a few media sources reported the story about the attorney's fees, they largely remained silent about it.
However, when the hearing concerning the legal fees for Evan took place on January 26th, and it was ruled that Evan's fees were to be reduced to $326,956 after Manson succeeded in getting it reduced more than $60,000, many media sources decided, more than five months after the original legal fees ruling, to pick up this story, and spun it as a major loss for Manson, even though the loss took place five months earlier and this time he actually had a win.
The same thing took place with Illma Gore's legal fee ruling after her February 15th hearing. Rolling Stone finally reported on this issue, and spun the story with the headline "Marilyn Manson Now Owes Nearly $500,000 to Defendants’ Lawyers After Failed Claims", even though that ruling took place nearly six months ago. This latest ruling awarded Illma Gore $169,408, even though she originally asked for $204,485, which means on February 15th Manson succeeded in reducing her legal fees by more than $35,000.
In the Rolling Stone article, we are also told the following:
"Warner is appealing the anti-SLAPP motion ruling. He believes his team 'uncovered evidence of malicious intent to ruin his career' and that the fees awarded to Wood and Gore ultimately will be waived, a source close to the case tells Rolling Stone."
Rolling Stone also says: "A trial is set for May 1." NME says: "A trial is set for May 1 this year."
NME was even more misleading in its headline: "Marilyn Manson ordered to pay even more legal fees totalling $500,000".
Both Rolling Stone and NME in their headlines make it sound as if Manson now owes Evan and Illma more money than what was ruled six months ago, manipulating the numbers by totaling the two, when in fact he successfully brought down the amount in these two most recent hearings, saving himself nearly $100,000 from what was originally ruled, because it was found both Evan and Illma added a significant amount of charges that should not have been there. Furthermore, while a tentative trial date is set for May 1st 2024, we have already been informed that this will not happen, since an appeal is being made to overturn the recent rulings.
Now that the pedophile protector Noah Shachtman has disgracefully been forced to resign from Rolling Stone, having been outspoken in his vendetta against Marilyn Manson in 2021, we should expect better reporting from Rolling Stone, but bad reporting seems to be at its very core.