As has been previously reported in the ongoing saga of the Ashley Walters case against Marilyn Manson, on December 16th 2025, a summary judgment was granted to Marilyn Manson which brought the case to an end through a dismissal. Immediately after the summary judgment, Ashley Walters promised to appeal the ruling, so on January 7th 2026 she filed a Motion for Reconsideration, where she invoked the new California law known as AB 250 which went into effect after the dismissal on January 1st 2026, which gives a two-year revival window for otherwise time-barred claims of sexual assault. On January 26th 2026, Judge Steve Cochran reversed his previous ruling to dismiss the case and granted a revival of the case to Ashley Walters based on the new law. "I do think the statute revives the claim. You’re [heading toward trial] all over again,” said the Judge according to Rolling Stone . From the date of this ruling in favor of Walters, she now has 15 days to file an amended complaint. During ...
A Deep Dive Into the Second Court Dismissal of the Case of Ashley Walters Against Her Former Employer Marilyn Manson
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:...