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:...
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:
The lawsuit was filed too late. Every type of claim has a statute of limitations, a legal deadline by which a lawsuit must be brought.
Meaning: Even if the plaintiff’s allegations were true, the law no longer allows them to be litigated because too much time has passed.
3. “The Court finds Plaintiff’s equitable estoppel is without merit.”
This is an important legal point.
Equitable estoppel is a doctrine that can pause or extend the statute of limitations if:
- The defendant misled the plaintiff, or
- The defendant’s conduct prevented the plaintiff from filing the lawsuit on time.
The court is saying:
The plaintiff argued that the deadline should be excused or extended — but that argument fails.
Meaning: The judge found no valid evidence that the defendants did anything that legally prevented the plaintiff from filing earlier.
"Motion for Summary Judgment" is a party's request for a court to rule in their favor on all or part of a case before trial, arguing there are no genuine disputes over key facts (material facts) and that the law clearly favors them, making a trial unnecessary.
"Dismissed without prejudice" means a court case is stopped, but the party who filed it can refile the same claim later, as the dismissal isn't a final decision on the case's merits, often allowing plaintiffs to fix issues like missing evidence or filing errors before trying again within the statute of limitations. It's a temporary pause, unlike a dismissal with prejudice, which permanently bars refiling.
WHAT ROLLING STONE SAYS ABOUT THE DECEMBER 16TH HEARING
A reporter from Rolling Stone, a publication which has taken a clear stance against Marilyn Manson and in favor of his accusers (with a hit-piece "investigation" and a hit-piece documentary), was at the hearing on December 16th, and this is what they reported:
According to Rolling Stone, Los Angeles County Judge Steve Cochran said at the December 16th hearing: “We have a situation where the complaint was not filed until about 10 years after the operative events. I’m not able to find that the delayed-discovery rule is applicable. I don’t have the authority to rule that the delayed discovery doctrine would apply under the circumstances that exist in this case.”
Kate McFarlane, a lawyer for Walters, told Rolling Stone after the hearing that they would explore an appeal. “We’re disappointed. We think this is the wrong decision. The delayed-discovery rule is specifically to address situations where victims of sexual abuse deserve the ability to seek justice when their abuser has used tactics to prevent them from coming forward. This is something we see time and time again, and it seems the law hasn’t caught up to the science and what’s right for victims. But I don’t believe this is the end of the road.”
Manson's lawyer, Howard King, said after winning the motion: “It’s gratifying, after all these years, that a judge can just look at the facts and see that once again, Brian Warner was wrongfully
accused. It’s nice for him to get some justice, though it was at great personal cost. Now he can move on.”
According to Rolling Stone, during the hearing, McFarlane argued that Walters deserved revival of her claims because she allegedly was manipulated by Warner in a way that mirrored child sexual abuse. She urged the court to look at cases where children suffered from repressed memories before seeking justice as adults.
“We have a young woman who was in her twenties, and her employer was in his forties. There’s an innate power dynamic,” she argued. “He’s a very well-known, high-powered celebrity with a lot of pull in the industry, a lot of clout. This was a young woman barely into her adult years being manipulated by someone with a lot of power.”
It seems like the spin Rolling Stone is trying to show is that the case ended merely because of the statute of limitations, which is an oversimplification and not true based on the previously mentioned information.
BRIEF HISTORY OF ASHLEY WALTERS VERSUS MARILYN MANSON
Ashley Walters filed the lawsuit against her former employer Marilyn Manson, to whom she was a personal assistant in 2010-2011, in May 2021, detailing claims of (1) sexual discrimination, (2) sexual harassment, (3) sexual assault, (4) violation of the Bane Act, (5) sexual battery, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) battery, and (8) assault. A year later, on May 2022, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge dismissed Walters' suit without prejudice citing the grounds of the statute of limitations.
After the first dismissal, Walters filed an amended suit against Manson in 2022 citing repressed memories of sexual abuse and battery and added that later threats of violence wrought a sense of fear within her to come forward sooner. In 2023, a tribunal with California's Second Appellate District granted Walters an appeal that sent the case back to the judge for trial. The decision noted, "Walters' allegations of delayed discovery were sufficient to withstand demurrer and we reverse."
It should be noted that the appeal was granted to Walters on the condition that she could prove the validity of her repressed memories being recovered in 2020, which would be a monumental feat, since no one has ever been able to do that before, at least not in a California court.
WHAT LED TO THE COURT HEARING ON DECEMBER 16TH?
After Marilyn Manson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 19th 2025, it was determined that a hearing for this matter would take place on December 16th.
,
Plaintiff Ashley Walters sought to delay this Motion on November 20th, citing that she needed time "to proffer expert testimony, take additional depositions and complete discovery." She noted that the deadline to complete discovery was not until December 26, 2025, and that the hearing for the Motion should be when this deadline is over. She also noted that it would cause "irreparable harm" to her if her opposition was denied.
Defendant Marilyn Manson replied that from the time he filed on September 19th until she sought to delay the hearing on November 20th, two months had passed and she did not have even one deposition done, there was no meaningful discovery done, and she made no effort whatsoever to obtain the “essential facts” she now claims to lack. Therefore, the reason this information was missing was because she had not sought it. According to California law, in order for her request to be fulfilled, she has to be in the process of making a diligent effort to obtain the information she needed, but because there was no diligent effort made on her part whatsoever, her request to delay should be denied. It should also be noted that in April 2025, the court granted Walters a six-month trial continuance which would allow her to seek all the depositions and discovery she needs, and at that time the court ruled that that no further continuances would be granted. As the defendant writes: "Despite this clear directive and the ample time provided, plaintiff has conducted no discovery since the continuance was granted. Instead, she has waited until the eve of her opposition deadline to file this last-minute ex parte request."
According to the defendant, "On March 14, 2025, plaintiff completed the deposition of Mr. Warner. Since Mr. Warner’s deposition, plaintiff has not noticed any depositions or subpoenaed any witnesses for deposition." On the other hand, the defendant had a number of depositions done, and even had a mental examination of the plaintiff by the defendants’ expert witness, Julie M. Brovko, Ph.D. The mental examination was completed on May 29, 2025 (we have not been given the results of this mental examination).
Seeing that Ashley Walters was unable to give a valid reason for the delay, the court denied her Ex Parte Application on November 21st. This means that the hearing for the Motion for Summary Judgment would take place on December 16th.
THE DECLARATION OF ASHLEY WALTERS FOR THE DECEMBER 16TH HEARING
Ashley Walters filed her declaration for the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing on November 25th. Below is a summary:
Background and Context
Ashley Walters met Brian Warner in 2010 and worked for him until 2011, during which she experienced a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse.
Initially intimidated by Warner's fame, she felt pressured to comply with his demands, fearing for her career.
The abuse included threats to her reputation and instances of physical intimidation, such as being chased with a hatchet.
Memory and Trauma
Walters explains that her understanding of the events as abuse developed over time, aided by therapy and discussions with other victims.
She describes her initial inability to recognize the abuse due to trauma responses, including repression and dissociation, which affected her memory formation.
Prior trauma from a previous rape contributed to her hypervigilance and distrust of her instincts regarding abuse.
Post-Employment Experiences
After leaving Warner's employment, Walters continued to feel fear and intimidation, with Warner maintaining contact that she interpreted as threats.
She struggled with feelings of shame and guilt, often rationalizing the abuse as normal or her fault.
It wasn't until September 2020, after engaging in trauma-focused therapy and connecting with other victims, that she began to recover memories and understand the full extent of the abuse.
Clarification of Testimony
During her deposition, Walters attempted to convey that her memories were fragmented and not a continuous recollection of events.
She clarifies that her references to knowing certain behaviors were wrong were based on isolated moments of fear rather than a comprehensive understanding of the abuse.
Walters emphasizes that her delayed recall is a recognized trauma response and that she did not intend to imply she had a clear memory of all incidents from the time they occurred.
Conclusion
Walters asserts that her experiences align with common trauma responses and that her fears of retaliation from Warner delayed her decision to come forward.
She continues to seek therapy and has not experienced any inconsistent memory recovery since filing the case.
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY EDWARD READING
The declaration by Dr. Anthony E. Reading provides expert psychological insights relevant to the case.
Dr. Reading is a clinical and forensic psychologist with dual citizenship in the UK and the US.
He has extensive experience in trauma research and memory suppression, particularly in cases of sexual abuse.
The declaration emphasizes that involuntary memory suppression of traumatic events is a recognized phenomenon in psychology.
Dr. Reading notes that trauma can lead to dissociative amnesia, where individuals may not recall significant autobiographical information.
Psychological Impact of Trauma
The document discusses the psychological effects of trauma and memory suppression as experienced by the plaintiff.
Ashley Walters claims to have suffered sexual and psychological abuse from Brian Warner.
The declaration states that trauma can disrupt memory encoding, leading to fragmented or inaccessible memories.
Delayed recall of traumatic events is common and can occur when individuals feel safe or undergo therapy.
The DSM-5-TR recognizes dissociative amnesia as a potential response to severe trauma, with the inability to recall important information being a key feature.
Professional Credentials of Dr. Reading
Dr. Reading's qualifications and professional background are detailed to establish his credibility as an expert witness.
DECLARATION OF MALLORY HEPP
Mallory Hepp, a licensed clinical social worker (not a psychologist) with about nine years of experience, states that she has been Ashley Walters’s treating therapist since November 2020 and continues to see her regularly. She explains that Walters began therapy to process and cope with trauma, including working through suppressed memories related to alleged abuse by Brian Warner during Walters’s employment with him in 2010–2011.
DECLARATION OF KATE MCFARLANE
In this declaration, Kate McFarlane, the attorney for the plaintiff, submits excerpts from the depositions of Ashley Walters (taken March 12, 2025), her friend Alexandra Alvarez Denisoff (taken September 30, 2025), and her friend Esme Bianco (taken September 4, 2025).
The Deposition of Ashley Walters
The original videotaped deposition is 253 pages in volume one. Below is information from excerpts of the deposition.
When asked if her memories were still fragmented as a result of the trauma she believes she underwent, she replied: "Some, yes." She also indicated that she had still not fully recovered her memories.
She says she gets therapy from Mallory Herp, who is not a psychologist but a social worker, once a week. She helps her recover her memories by talking through them.
Walters claims that in an email she told her friend and roommate at the time, Sasha (Alexandra Alvarez Denisoff), that Manson was throwing things and chasing her with a hatchet.
[Having read the email in question, dated May 4th 2011, Walters never tells Sasha or even suggests to her that Manson was chasing her with a hatchet, but that Manson "threw an axe in the wall." Further on in the deposition, when questioned if she ever told Manson's manager Tony C. about the incident, she replied she didn't know if she told him because she has absolutely no recollection of the incident, and no one she knows has substantiated her claim. If she has no recollection of the incident, that means the only way she knows about the incident is from the email she cited, but the email never substantiates her claim that Manson threw things at her, including a hatchet or an axe. Then when asked if Manson threw anything at her, she says that she doesn't recall him throwing anything at her, but that he just threw thing in general. The only thing she claims she remembers is that Manson threw food at her.]
Walters recounts her sexual assault from either 2004 or 2005 when she was 20 years old by a co-worker from out of town who she was showing around and brought back to her apartment. Later she will say that she had told Manson of this incident.
Walters then recounts what she calls her sexual battery by Manson, the first time they met. They were alone in his apartment, he took some photos of her in her bra and pants in his bedroom, and when they were done he threw her down onto the bed and put one of her hands down his pants in order to have her feel his sexual arousal and what described as his "pre-cum", while he was nibbling on her ear and trying to kiss her neck. She claims this incident is sexual battery because she did not consent to have her hand put down his pants. She then immediately rolled off the bed and made light of the situation. When asked if she told him to stop or said "no" to him, she said she did not say anything, but it was enough that he did not ask for permission first before putting her hand there to make it non-consensual. She then says that she had to stay the night because she parked in the wrong parking lot and her car was locked in.
[It should be noted that this incident is listed in her complaint as one which she remembered as a recovered memory, but in her deposition she seems to deny this. It is unclear from this excerpt if there is a contradiction. What is clear is that if this story is true as she recalls it, then Manson could have misjudged the situation, and upon seeing her uncomfortable, he immediately withdrew and never did anything like that again. Moreover, in the deposition she says that at the time she was okay with what happened and did not consider anything wrong with it; in fact she considered it normal though was uncomfortable with it.]
At one point in the deposition she says she had sex with bandmember Jeordie White once, but the excerpt cuts off and it doesn't get into the details. Later on she says Jeordie groped her more than once, but never assaulted her.
A month after what she calls the sexual battery incident, she posed nude to have her pictures taken by Manson. She did not consider Manson a threat to her, despite the incident she describes a month prior.
There is a text exchange with no date given between Walters and Esme Bianco where Bianco tells Walters that Manson indicated in a text to her that something happened between himself and Walters, to which Walters replied: "Whoa, that's craziness. The only time he ever tried to get fresh with me was the night we first met. But I didn't let anything happen, and you already knew about the pre-cum night anyway. I have never even kissed Manson."
Walters claims to have been sexually assaulted multiple times in 2010 and 2011 by other men. She says that she remembers some and repressed her memories of others. None of these were ever reported to the police or to Manson's manager Tony C., but she says she did tell Manson once or twice.
She claims actor Naveen Andrews was playing with himself under the covers when they were both doing a photoshoot in a bed. [Apparently this is a repressed memory which bandmember Fred Sablan reminded her about.] Another time when Naveen was very drunk he forcefully licked and kissed her outside a bathroom. Another time, after these incidents, she had voluntary sex with him three times, but she says she was fawning (what is described as "mercy sex"). Walters admits that she did not consider anything with Naveen Andrews to be sexual assault until after she started going to therapy in 2020.
She names actor Ian Somerholden as the actor who kept her in his lap and kissed her at the 2010 Spike TV Scream Awards.
An unnamed actor from the show "Lost" tried to have sex with her, but when she rejected him he was surprised.
She accuses director Eli Roth of groping her, inappropriately touching her and exposing himself to her.
Walters says that Japanese musician Yoshiki bit her nipple and offered to pay her more than Manson did to work for him.
She lists the following incidents which she did not have a memory of until they were recovered in therapy in 2020: 1) The bathroom incident with Naveen, 2) The unknown "Lost" actor who tried to have sex with her, 3) Some of the incidents with Eli Roth she was not comfortable with. She also says that she never considered any incident as a sexual assault until 2020.
She says the incident where she claims Manson whipped her with a riding crop was repressed in her memory and later recovered in 2020. It was done in front of other people and Manson was joking around. She also laughed about it at the time, though she was uncomfortable.
Though she repressed the memory, in 2020 she recovered a memory of Manson throwing a piece of sushi at her around July 2011.
Another memory she repressed but later recovered in 2020 was Manson throwing plates against the wall, and she joined in and broke one plate on the floor.
She repressed a memory of an incident where she was told by Manson to not let Jeordie White inside the apartment (no reason given for this except her stating it was the dynamic of their relationship), but he forced his way in (because he had a key) and she tried to stop him, and was unable to, so Manson started a tussle with Jeordie and in the process Manson threw Walters against the wall.
Walters recalls watching Manson's short film "Groupie", and at the time didn't know if it depicted something real or if it was an art piece. She remembers it caused her anxiety and it was disturbing. In the time she was employed by Manson, he showed it a couple of more times, though does not indicate the context.
In her complaint, Walters had mentioned that Manson offered her up to her industry friends. In this deposition she explains that she had no recollection of it, but it was something Evan Rachel Wood and Fred Sablan told her about in their Survivor's Meeting in September 2020. She says that Evan told her she overheard Manson offer her up to Eli Roth, while Fred Sablan told her that he overheard Manson offer her up to Naveen.
On Thanksgiving of 2010 she celebrated with Manson, Ashley Smithline, and two of Manson's friends. Manson was in a bad mood that day, she says, and she locked herself in his bedroom. In a fit of anger, he broke down the locked back door to his bedroom, but calmed down when he noticed she was on the phone with her mother. However, she had no memory of this incident, and only knew that it was a horrible Thanksgiving that year. The memory was recovered in 2020. [Though I only have excerpts of this deposition, I do wonder why Manson's lawyer didn't ask her if she ever noticed the broken door on a future date or as his assistant if she ever went through the process of getting someone to fix it. She never offers any substantiation to her claims.]
Interestingly, Walters claims that some of the incidents she repressed were repressed while she was still employed by Manson, but others she repressed after her employment came to an end. She claims the memories were repressed as a survival mechanism, even after the employment came to an end. She cites the fact that after her employment with Manson she began having panic attacks for the first time in her life. She had "countless" panic attacks after her employment under Manson, and she associated them with past trauma. [It should be noted that it is very common for young adults to develope panic attacks, especially if they snort cocaine like Walters did and do not get enough sleep. Too much caffeine could trigger a panic attack.]
She says Manson forced her to stay awake for about 48 hours straight on at least three different occasions. He would force her to do cocaine. Once he made her stand on a chair for twelve hours for artistic photos and encouraged her to continue by forcing her to partake of cocaine.
She accuses Manson of forcing her and Chloe Black to dance and sing karaoke when he and Chloe got into a fight.
The incident where she says Manson told her to go the roof of his apartment and cut the telephone wires because he thought neighbors were tapping his phone was a recovered memory from 2020.
Later in the deposition, Walters interestingly clarifies that Manson didn't actually chase her around with a hatchet. She says: "I think it was just brandished and waving around. I'm not saying I was, like, running down and screaming in the hall while he chased me down. I think that was Esme that had that. But there was just wielding around." This clarification came after recalling a separate incident when Esme told her one day Manson chased her with a hatchet and she had a panic attack. [This makes you wonder if her recovered memory was in fact something Esme told her about herself, which she mixed in with her own incident described in her email to Sasha.]
At one point she contradicts Esme Bianco's claim about being spanked at her birthday party. Bianco viewed the birthday spanking as an act of abuse, while Walters considered it as being done in fun and was done in front of a group. [I have seen the video of the birthday spanking, and it was clearly done in fun and in front of a group.]
She recalls an incident of a time when Manson became impatient with her so he charged at her, but Fred Sablan pushed her out of the way. This incident was repressed and apparently was told to her by Fred.
She is questioned why after being fired she tried to get her job back a week later, even though she claims it was such a bad experience. And even when she did return, a few months later she did not quit, but was again fired by Manson. We are never told why Manson fired her the second time, but the first time was after she secretly took Manson's vehicle for a drive with Esme Bianco while they were drunk, and not only did she total the car in an accident but she received a DUI for it.]
The Deposition of Alexandra Alvarez Denisoff
The original videotaped deposition is 119 pages. Below is information from excerpts of the deposition.
Alexandra, whom Walters calls Sasha, was Walters' roommate during the time of her employment with Manson.
She says she went to Manson's apartment around 18 times.
She recalls being told about Manson throwing things and having Walters do cocaine, and expressed her concern cause it was not a normal work environment, but she says Walters' reaction was "detached," as if it was normal. She never told Walters to quit her job or to report any incident.
She never saw Manson being violent.
She says she was never told about the incident on Thanksgiving in 2010 until 2020 when Walters recovered the memory.
She sort of confirms the story of Manson meeting Walters the first time. Walters told her about it the next day. However, she recalled the incident as Manson kissing her and putting his hand down her underwear, which Walters never mentions. Alexandra also says that she recalls Walters telling her about another time Manson tried to have sex with her, but Walters had denied any other incident during her deposition.
She also recalls Walters telling her in 2011 how Manson told Yoshiki in Japan that they should switch personal assistants to have sex with them.
She also recalls Walters telling her about Esme getting chased with a hatchet.
The Deposition of Esme Bianco
The original videotaped deposition is 140 pages. Below is information from excerpts of the deposition.
Only a few pages from this deposition have been released, and doesn't provide really any new information, except that Esme downplays any involvement of Ashley Walters in the Phoenix Act.
One significant issue is brought up relating to Esme Bianco herself. Manson's lawyer asks Esme the following: "Does this exchange between you and Brian reflect you wanting to get out of London because your husband had physically assaulted you?" Her reply is "No, Brian had asked me to go to L.A. to live with him." [We are not given the exchange referred to, but from text messages I have read between Esme and Manson, it does sound like she described being in an abusive marriage, which it appears began when her husband found out about her secret relationship with Manson, and when she left London to be with Manson in Los Angeles, she was not even divorced yet. Her divorce from her husband didn't take place until the summer of 2011, when her relationship with Manson ended.]
CONCLUSION
As stated earlier, this case was dismissed not simply because of a statute of limitations, but because Manson was granted a Motion for Summary Judgment. Legally, Walters had no case against Manson that had a shot of her winning in a trial before a jury. As we see in her deposition, Walters clearly had emotional responses to incidents described in 2010 and 2011, and admitted that she recalled some things and repressed others, and that most of what she repressed was repressed after her employment to Manson came to an end. Some memories had to be fed to her by others, and even when she was told about them she still could not recollect them. At the December 16th hearing her lawyer basically explained that such memory fragmentation is common in young children who suffered sexual abuse, and that because of the power dynamic between Manson and Walters, with him being a powerful celebrity nearly twice her age, it was as if she was a child being abused by an adult and we are told that this is how this case needs to be looked at. Because the court rejected these explanations to keep the trial going legally, Walters' lawyers accuse the court and the law of not being aligned with the science. This is despite the fact that the whole concept of repressed and recovered memories is scientifically controversial and heavily disputed, and critics would argue that there is no scientific evidence to back up such claims.
Walters had an uphill battle with this case. If she had won it, it would have been groundbreaking, because she would have taken something almost impossible to prove and gave it precedent in a court of law. As the case was unraveling however, especially after her deposition, it was determined that Walters had a very weak case to work with, to the point where much of it can be disputed as being in the realm of reality. A settlement wasn't even offered to her. Manson clearly knew there was nothing to this case, so he filed to have it dismissed, and the court granted him his request. If she could have proven the validity of her recovered memories after 2020, or even made an effort to prove them and showed the court she was in the process of gathering her evidence, the statute of limitations would likely have not have been a factor in this case.
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:
The lawsuit was filed too late. Every type of claim has a statute of limitations, a legal deadline by which a lawsuit must be brought.
Meaning: Even if the plaintiff’s allegations were true, the law no longer allows them to be litigated because too much time has passed.
3. “The Court finds Plaintiff’s equitable estoppel is without merit.”
This is an important legal point.
Equitable estoppel is a doctrine that can pause or extend the statute of limitations if:
- The defendant misled the plaintiff, or
- The defendant’s conduct prevented the plaintiff from filing the lawsuit on time.
The court is saying:
The plaintiff argued that the deadline should be excused or extended — but that argument fails.
Meaning: The judge found no valid evidence that the defendants did anything that legally prevented the plaintiff from filing earlier.
"Motion for Summary Judgment" is a party's request for a court to rule in their favor on all or part of a case before trial, arguing there are no genuine disputes over key facts (material facts) and that the law clearly favors them, making a trial unnecessary.
"Dismissed without prejudice" means a court case is stopped, but the party who filed it can refile the same claim later, as the dismissal isn't a final decision on the case's merits, often allowing plaintiffs to fix issues like missing evidence or filing errors before trying again within the statute of limitations. It's a temporary pause, unlike a dismissal with prejudice, which permanently bars refiling.
WHAT ROLLING STONE SAYS ABOUT THE DECEMBER 16TH HEARING
A reporter from Rolling Stone, a publication which has taken a clear stance against Marilyn Manson and in favor of his accusers (with a hit-piece "investigation" and a hit-piece documentary), was at the hearing on December 16th, and this is what they reported:
According to Rolling Stone, Los Angeles County Judge Steve Cochran said at the December 16th hearing: “We have a situation where the complaint was not filed until about 10 years after the operative events. I’m not able to find that the delayed-discovery rule is applicable. I don’t have the authority to rule that the delayed discovery doctrine would apply under the circumstances that exist in this case.”
Kate McFarlane, a lawyer for Walters, told Rolling Stone after the hearing that they would explore an appeal. “We’re disappointed. We think this is the wrong decision. The delayed-discovery rule is specifically to address situations where victims of sexual abuse deserve the ability to seek justice when their abuser has used tactics to prevent them from coming forward. This is something we see time and time again, and it seems the law hasn’t caught up to the science and what’s right for victims. But I don’t believe this is the end of the road.”
Manson's lawyer, Howard King, said after winning the motion: “It’s gratifying, after all these years, that a judge can just look at the facts and see that once again, Brian Warner was wrongfully
accused. It’s nice for him to get some justice, though it was at great personal cost. Now he can move on.”
According to Rolling Stone, during the hearing, McFarlane argued that Walters deserved revival of her claims because she allegedly was manipulated by Warner in a way that mirrored child sexual abuse. She urged the court to look at cases where children suffered from repressed memories before seeking justice as adults.
“We have a young woman who was in her twenties, and her employer was in his forties. There’s an innate power dynamic,” she argued. “He’s a very well-known, high-powered celebrity with a lot of pull in the industry, a lot of clout. This was a young woman barely into her adult years being manipulated by someone with a lot of power.”
It seems like the spin Rolling Stone is trying to show is that the case ended merely because of the statute of limitations, which is an oversimplification and not true based on the previously mentioned information.
BRIEF HISTORY OF ASHLEY WALTERS VERSUS MARILYN MANSON
Ashley Walters filed the lawsuit against her former employer Marilyn Manson, to whom she was a personal assistant in 2010-2011, in May 2021, detailing claims of (1) sexual discrimination, (2) sexual harassment, (3) sexual assault, (4) violation of the Bane Act, (5) sexual battery, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) battery, and (8) assault. A year later, on May 2022, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge dismissed Walters' suit without prejudice citing the grounds of the statute of limitations.
After the first dismissal, Walters filed an amended suit against Manson in 2022 citing repressed memories of sexual abuse and battery and added that later threats of violence wrought a sense of fear within her to come forward sooner. In 2023, a tribunal with California's Second Appellate District granted Walters an appeal that sent the case back to the judge for trial. The decision noted, "Walters' allegations of delayed discovery were sufficient to withstand demurrer and we reverse."
It should be noted that the appeal was granted to Walters on the condition that she could prove the validity of her repressed memories being recovered in 2020, which would be a monumental feat, since no one has ever been able to do that before, at least not in a California court.
WHAT LED TO THE COURT HEARING ON DECEMBER 16TH?
After Marilyn Manson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 19th 2025, it was determined that a hearing for this matter would take place on December 16th.
,
Plaintiff Ashley Walters sought to delay this Motion on November 20th, citing that she needed time "to proffer expert testimony, take additional depositions and complete discovery." She noted that the deadline to complete discovery was not until December 26, 2025, and that the hearing for the Motion should be when this deadline is over. She also noted that it would cause "irreparable harm" to her if her opposition was denied.
Defendant Marilyn Manson replied that from the time he filed on September 19th until she sought to delay the hearing on November 20th, two months had passed and she did not have even one deposition done, there was no meaningful discovery done, and she made no effort whatsoever to obtain the “essential facts” she now claims to lack. Therefore, the reason this information was missing was because she had not sought it. According to California law, in order for her request to be fulfilled, she has to be in the process of making a diligent effort to obtain the information she needed, but because there was no diligent effort made on her part whatsoever, her request to delay should be denied. It should also be noted that in April 2025, the court granted Walters a six-month trial continuance which would allow her to seek all the depositions and discovery she needs, and at that time the court ruled that that no further continuances would be granted. As the defendant writes: "Despite this clear directive and the ample time provided, plaintiff has conducted no discovery since the continuance was granted. Instead, she has waited until the eve of her opposition deadline to file this last-minute ex parte request."
According to the defendant, "On March 14, 2025, plaintiff completed the deposition of Mr. Warner. Since Mr. Warner’s deposition, plaintiff has not noticed any depositions or subpoenaed any witnesses for deposition." On the other hand, the defendant had a number of depositions done, and even had a mental examination of the plaintiff by the defendants’ expert witness, Julie M. Brovko, Ph.D. The mental examination was completed on May 29, 2025 (we have not been given the results of this mental examination).
Seeing that Ashley Walters was unable to give a valid reason for the delay, the court denied her Ex Parte Application on November 21st. This means that the hearing for the Motion for Summary Judgment would take place on December 16th.
THE DECLARATION OF ASHLEY WALTERS FOR THE DECEMBER 16TH HEARING
Ashley Walters filed her declaration for the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing on November 25th. Below is a summary:
Background and Context
Ashley Walters met Brian Warner in 2010 and worked for him until 2011, during which she experienced a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse.
Initially intimidated by Warner's fame, she felt pressured to comply with his demands, fearing for her career.
The abuse included threats to her reputation and instances of physical intimidation, such as being chased with a hatchet.
Memory and Trauma
Walters explains that her understanding of the events as abuse developed over time, aided by therapy and discussions with other victims.
She describes her initial inability to recognize the abuse due to trauma responses, including repression and dissociation, which affected her memory formation.
Prior trauma from a previous rape contributed to her hypervigilance and distrust of her instincts regarding abuse.
Post-Employment Experiences
After leaving Warner's employment, Walters continued to feel fear and intimidation, with Warner maintaining contact that she interpreted as threats.
She struggled with feelings of shame and guilt, often rationalizing the abuse as normal or her fault.
It wasn't until September 2020, after engaging in trauma-focused therapy and connecting with other victims, that she began to recover memories and understand the full extent of the abuse.
Clarification of Testimony
During her deposition, Walters attempted to convey that her memories were fragmented and not a continuous recollection of events.
She clarifies that her references to knowing certain behaviors were wrong were based on isolated moments of fear rather than a comprehensive understanding of the abuse.
Walters emphasizes that her delayed recall is a recognized trauma response and that she did not intend to imply she had a clear memory of all incidents from the time they occurred.
Conclusion
Walters asserts that her experiences align with common trauma responses and that her fears of retaliation from Warner delayed her decision to come forward.
She continues to seek therapy and has not experienced any inconsistent memory recovery since filing the case.
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY EDWARD READING
The declaration by Dr. Anthony E. Reading provides expert psychological insights relevant to the case.
Dr. Reading is a clinical and forensic psychologist with dual citizenship in the UK and the US.
He has extensive experience in trauma research and memory suppression, particularly in cases of sexual abuse.
The declaration emphasizes that involuntary memory suppression of traumatic events is a recognized phenomenon in psychology.
Dr. Reading notes that trauma can lead to dissociative amnesia, where individuals may not recall significant autobiographical information.
Psychological Impact of Trauma
The document discusses the psychological effects of trauma and memory suppression as experienced by the plaintiff.
Ashley Walters claims to have suffered sexual and psychological abuse from Brian Warner.
The declaration states that trauma can disrupt memory encoding, leading to fragmented or inaccessible memories.
Delayed recall of traumatic events is common and can occur when individuals feel safe or undergo therapy.
The DSM-5-TR recognizes dissociative amnesia as a potential response to severe trauma, with the inability to recall important information being a key feature.
Professional Credentials of Dr. Reading
Dr. Reading's qualifications and professional background are detailed to establish his credibility as an expert witness.
DECLARATION OF MALLORY HEPP
Mallory Hepp, a licensed clinical social worker (not a psychologist) with about nine years of experience, states that she has been Ashley Walters’s treating therapist since November 2020 and continues to see her regularly. She explains that Walters began therapy to process and cope with trauma, including working through suppressed memories related to alleged abuse by Brian Warner during Walters’s employment with him in 2010–2011.
DECLARATION OF KATE MCFARLANE
In this declaration, Kate McFarlane, the attorney for the plaintiff, submits excerpts from the depositions of Ashley Walters (taken March 12, 2025), her friend Alexandra Alvarez Denisoff (taken September 30, 2025), and her friend Esme Bianco (taken September 4, 2025).
The Deposition of Ashley Walters
The original videotaped deposition is 253 pages in volume one. Below is information from excerpts of the deposition.
When asked if her memories were still fragmented as a result of the trauma she believes she underwent, she replied: "Some, yes." She also indicated that she had still not fully recovered her memories.
She says she gets therapy from Mallory Herp, who is not a psychologist but a social worker, once a week. She helps her recover her memories by talking through them.
Walters claims that in an email she told her friend and roommate at the time, Sasha (Alexandra Alvarez Denisoff), that Manson was throwing things and chasing her with a hatchet.
[Having read the email in question, dated May 4th 2011, Walters never tells Sasha or even suggests to her that Manson was chasing her with a hatchet, but that Manson "threw an axe in the wall." Further on in the deposition, when questioned if she ever told Manson's manager Tony C. about the incident, she replied she didn't know if she told him because she has absolutely no recollection of the incident, and no one she knows has substantiated her claim. If she has no recollection of the incident, that means the only way she knows about the incident is from the email she cited, but the email never substantiates her claim that Manson threw things at her, including a hatchet or an axe. Then when asked if Manson threw anything at her, she says that she doesn't recall him throwing anything at her, but that he just threw thing in general. The only thing she claims she remembers is that Manson threw food at her.]
Walters recounts her sexual assault from either 2004 or 2005 when she was 20 years old by a co-worker from out of town who she was showing around and brought back to her apartment. Later she will say that she had told Manson of this incident.
Walters then recounts what she calls her sexual battery by Manson, the first time they met. They were alone in his apartment, he took some photos of her in her bra and pants in his bedroom, and when they were done he threw her down onto the bed and put one of her hands down his pants in order to have her feel his sexual arousal and what described as his "pre-cum", while he was nibbling on her ear and trying to kiss her neck. She claims this incident is sexual battery because she did not consent to have her hand put down his pants. She then immediately rolled off the bed and made light of the situation. When asked if she told him to stop or said "no" to him, she said she did not say anything, but it was enough that he did not ask for permission first before putting her hand there to make it non-consensual. She then says that she had to stay the night because she parked in the wrong parking lot and her car was locked in.
[It should be noted that this incident is listed in her complaint as one which she remembered as a recovered memory, but in her deposition she seems to deny this. It is unclear from this excerpt if there is a contradiction. What is clear is that if this story is true as she recalls it, then Manson could have misjudged the situation, and upon seeing her uncomfortable, he immediately withdrew and never did anything like that again. Moreover, in the deposition she says that at the time she was okay with what happened and did not consider anything wrong with it; in fact she considered it normal though was uncomfortable with it.]
At one point in the deposition she says she had sex with bandmember Jeordie White once, but the excerpt cuts off and it doesn't get into the details. Later on she says Jeordie groped her more than once, but never assaulted her.
A month after what she calls the sexual battery incident, she posed nude to have her pictures taken by Manson. She did not consider Manson a threat to her, despite the incident she describes a month prior.
There is a text exchange with no date given between Walters and Esme Bianco where Bianco tells Walters that Manson indicated in a text to her that something happened between himself and Walters, to which Walters replied: "Whoa, that's craziness. The only time he ever tried to get fresh with me was the night we first met. But I didn't let anything happen, and you already knew about the pre-cum night anyway. I have never even kissed Manson."
Walters claims to have been sexually assaulted multiple times in 2010 and 2011 by other men. She says that she remembers some and repressed her memories of others. None of these were ever reported to the police or to Manson's manager Tony C., but she says she did tell Manson once or twice.
She claims actor Naveen Andrews was playing with himself under the covers when they were both doing a photoshoot in a bed. [Apparently this is a repressed memory which bandmember Fred Sablan reminded her about.] Another time when Naveen was very drunk he forcefully licked and kissed her outside a bathroom. Another time, after these incidents, she had voluntary sex with him three times, but she says she was fawning (what is described as "mercy sex"). Walters admits that she did not consider anything with Naveen Andrews to be sexual assault until after she started going to therapy in 2020.
She names actor Ian Somerholden as the actor who kept her in his lap and kissed her at the 2010 Spike TV Scream Awards.
An unnamed actor from the show "Lost" tried to have sex with her, but when she rejected him he was surprised.
She accuses director Eli Roth of groping her, inappropriately touching her and exposing himself to her.
Walters says that Japanese musician Yoshiki bit her nipple and offered to pay her more than Manson did to work for him.
She lists the following incidents which she did not have a memory of until they were recovered in therapy in 2020: 1) The bathroom incident with Naveen, 2) The unknown "Lost" actor who tried to have sex with her, 3) Some of the incidents with Eli Roth she was not comfortable with. She also says that she never considered any incident as a sexual assault until 2020.
She says the incident where she claims Manson whipped her with a riding crop was repressed in her memory and later recovered in 2020. It was done in front of other people and Manson was joking around. She also laughed about it at the time, though she was uncomfortable.
Though she repressed the memory, in 2020 she recovered a memory of Manson throwing a piece of sushi at her around July 2011.
Another memory she repressed but later recovered in 2020 was Manson throwing plates against the wall, and she joined in and broke one plate on the floor.
She repressed a memory of an incident where she was told by Manson to not let Jeordie White inside the apartment (no reason given for this except her stating it was the dynamic of their relationship), but he forced his way in (because he had a key) and she tried to stop him, and was unable to, so Manson started a tussle with Jeordie and in the process Manson threw Walters against the wall.
Walters recalls watching Manson's short film "Groupie", and at the time didn't know if it depicted something real or if it was an art piece. She remembers it caused her anxiety and it was disturbing. In the time she was employed by Manson, he showed it a couple of more times, though does not indicate the context.
In her complaint, Walters had mentioned that Manson offered her up to her industry friends. In this deposition she explains that she had no recollection of it, but it was something Evan Rachel Wood and Fred Sablan told her about in their Survivor's Meeting in September 2020. She says that Evan told her she overheard Manson offer her up to Eli Roth, while Fred Sablan told her that he overheard Manson offer her up to Naveen.
On Thanksgiving of 2010 she celebrated with Manson, Ashley Smithline, and two of Manson's friends. Manson was in a bad mood that day, she says, and she locked herself in his bedroom. In a fit of anger, he broke down the locked back door to his bedroom, but calmed down when he noticed she was on the phone with her mother. However, she had no memory of this incident, and only knew that it was a horrible Thanksgiving that year. The memory was recovered in 2020. [Though I only have excerpts of this deposition, I do wonder why Manson's lawyer didn't ask her if she ever noticed the broken door on a future date or as his assistant if she ever went through the process of getting someone to fix it. She never offers any substantiation to her claims.]
Interestingly, Walters claims that some of the incidents she repressed were repressed while she was still employed by Manson, but others she repressed after her employment came to an end. She claims the memories were repressed as a survival mechanism, even after the employment came to an end. She cites the fact that after her employment with Manson she began having panic attacks for the first time in her life. She had "countless" panic attacks after her employment under Manson, and she associated them with past trauma. [It should be noted that it is very common for young adults to develope panic attacks, especially if they snort cocaine like Walters did and do not get enough sleep. Too much caffeine could trigger a panic attack.]
She says Manson forced her to stay awake for about 48 hours straight on at least three different occasions. He would force her to do cocaine. Once he made her stand on a chair for twelve hours for artistic photos and encouraged her to continue by forcing her to partake of cocaine.
She accuses Manson of forcing her and Chloe Black to dance and sing karaoke when he and Chloe got into a fight.
The incident where she says Manson told her to go the roof of his apartment and cut the telephone wires because he thought neighbors were tapping his phone was a recovered memory from 2020.
Later in the deposition, Walters interestingly clarifies that Manson didn't actually chase her around with a hatchet. She says: "I think it was just brandished and waving around. I'm not saying I was, like, running down and screaming in the hall while he chased me down. I think that was Esme that had that. But there was just wielding around." This clarification came after recalling a separate incident when Esme told her one day Manson chased her with a hatchet and she had a panic attack. [This makes you wonder if her recovered memory was in fact something Esme told her about herself, which she mixed in with her own incident described in her email to Sasha.]
At one point she contradicts Esme Bianco's claim about being spanked at her birthday party. Bianco viewed the birthday spanking as an act of abuse, while Walters considered it as being done in fun and was done in front of a group. [I have seen the video of the birthday spanking, and it was clearly done in fun and in front of a group.]
She recalls an incident of a time when Manson became impatient with her so he charged at her, but Fred Sablan pushed her out of the way. This incident was repressed and apparently was told to her by Fred.
She is questioned why after being fired she tried to get her job back a week later, even though she claims it was such a bad experience. And even when she did return, a few months later she did not quit, but was again fired by Manson. We are never told why Manson fired her the second time, but the first time was after she secretly took Manson's vehicle for a drive with Esme Bianco while they were drunk, and not only did she total the car in an accident but she received a DUI for it.]
The Deposition of Alexandra Alvarez Denisoff
The original videotaped deposition is 119 pages. Below is information from excerpts of the deposition.
Alexandra, whom Walters calls Sasha, was Walters' roommate during the time of her employment with Manson.
She says she went to Manson's apartment around 18 times.
She recalls being told about Manson throwing things and having Walters do cocaine, and expressed her concern cause it was not a normal work environment, but she says Walters' reaction was "detached," as if it was normal. She never told Walters to quit her job or to report any incident.
She never saw Manson being violent.
She says she was never told about the incident on Thanksgiving in 2010 until 2020 when Walters recovered the memory.
She sort of confirms the story of Manson meeting Walters the first time. Walters told her about it the next day. However, she recalled the incident as Manson kissing her and putting his hand down her underwear, which Walters never mentions. Alexandra also says that she recalls Walters telling her about another time Manson tried to have sex with her, but Walters had denied any other incident during her deposition.
She also recalls Walters telling her in 2011 how Manson told Yoshiki in Japan that they should switch personal assistants to have sex with them.
She also recalls Walters telling her about Esme getting chased with a hatchet.
The Deposition of Esme Bianco
The original videotaped deposition is 140 pages. Below is information from excerpts of the deposition.
Only a few pages from this deposition have been released, and doesn't provide really any new information, except that Esme downplays any involvement of Ashley Walters in the Phoenix Act.
One significant issue is brought up relating to Esme Bianco herself. Manson's lawyer asks Esme the following: "Does this exchange between you and Brian reflect you wanting to get out of London because your husband had physically assaulted you?" Her reply is "No, Brian had asked me to go to L.A. to live with him." [We are not given the exchange referred to, but from text messages I have read between Esme and Manson, it does sound like she described being in an abusive marriage, which it appears began when her husband found out about her secret relationship with Manson, and when she left London to be with Manson in Los Angeles, she was not even divorced yet. Her divorce from her husband didn't take place until the summer of 2011, when her relationship with Manson ended.]
CONCLUSION
As stated earlier, this case was dismissed not simply because of a statute of limitations, but because Manson was granted a Motion for Summary Judgment. Legally, Walters had no case against Manson that had a shot of her winning in a trial before a jury. As we see in her deposition, Walters clearly had emotional responses to incidents described in 2010 and 2011, and admitted that she recalled some things and repressed others, and that most of what she repressed was repressed after her employment to Manson came to an end. Some memories had to be fed to her by others, and even when she was told about them she still could not recollect them. At the December 16th hearing her lawyer basically explained that such memory fragmentation is common in young children who suffered sexual abuse, and that because of the power dynamic between Manson and Walters, with him being a powerful celebrity nearly twice her age, it was as if she was a child being abused by an adult and we are told that this is how this case needs to be looked at. Because the court rejected these explanations to keep the trial going legally, Walters' lawyers accuse the court and the law of not being aligned with the science. This is despite the fact that the whole concept of repressed and recovered memories is scientifically controversial and heavily disputed, and critics would argue that there is no scientific evidence to back up such claims.
Walters had an uphill battle with this case. If she had won it, it would have been groundbreaking, because she would have taken something almost impossible to prove and gave it precedent in a court of law. As the case was unraveling however, especially after her deposition, it was determined that Walters had a very weak case to work with, to the point where much of it can be disputed as being in the realm of reality. A settlement wasn't even offered to her. Manson clearly knew there was nothing to this case, so he filed to have it dismissed, and the court granted him his request. If she could have proven the validity of her recovered memories after 2020, or even made an effort to prove them and showed the court she was in the process of gathering her evidence, the statute of limitations would likely have not have been a factor in this case.
If there is an appeal to this dismissal, then Walters needs to come up with a better way to show any validity to her recovered memories.