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...
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-barred sexual assault claims to be refiled or revived. Earlier this year, Judge Cochran ruled that AB 250 revived Walters' lawsuit after it had been dismissed in December 2025 on statute-of-limitations grounds.
At the June 5 hearing, Warner's attorneys argued that Walters' allegations did not satisfy the specific requirements necessary to qualify for revival under the new statute. Defense attorney Alexa Foley contended that Walters could not establish the type of restraint contemplated by the law during the alleged incident. However, Judge Cochran declined to dismiss the case on that basis, indicating that the litigation was still too early for such a narrowly focused determination, and if he were to dismiss the case at this stage, "I’d have trouble sleeping," he said. According to reports from the courtroom, the judge stated that he was not prepared to "be cutting the line that finely" at the pleading stage and suggested that the allegations, as presented, were sufficient to allow discovery and further factual development.
The judge also indicated that some of Walters' claims relating to alleged concealment by Marilyn Manson Records could face additional scrutiny later in the case, but nevertheless concluded that they too should survive for now. He emphasized that the defendants would have another opportunity to challenge the claims through a motion for summary judgment after evidence has been gathered and the application of AB 250 can be examined more fully.
Following the ruling, Warner's attorney Howard King characterized the decision as procedural rather than substantive.
"This was not unexpected," King said. "It's a clear invitation for a summary judgment motion. The judge telegraphed explicitly that we're not at the right stage of the case yet."
King has previously maintained that Warner denies the allegations and has argued that Walters is pursuing only a limited claim revived under the new statute. Following the January ruling, he stated that the revived claim "will not survive the next motion for summary judgment" and asserted that Warner "never committed any sexual assault."
Walters' attorney, Bina Ahmad, welcomed the June 5 decision.
"We are obviously pleased," Ahmad said. "We truly take the inspiration to keep fighting from our client. She's the brave one."
The ruling marks another significant development in a lawsuit that has seen multiple procedural twists over the past several years. While the court has not ruled on the truth or falsity of Walters' allegations, Judge Cochran's latest decision confirms that the claims are legally sufficient to proceed and that factual questions should be addressed through further litigation rather than dismissal at the pleading stage.
The parties are scheduled to return to court for a Case Management Conference on August 12, 2026, in Department 306 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles, where the court will set deadlines and procedures for the next phase of the case.
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-barred sexual assault claims to be refiled or revived. Earlier this year, Judge Cochran ruled that AB 250 revived Walters' lawsuit after it had been dismissed in December 2025 on statute-of-limitations grounds.
At the June 5 hearing, Warner's attorneys argued that Walters' allegations did not satisfy the specific requirements necessary to qualify for revival under the new statute. Defense attorney Alexa Foley contended that Walters could not establish the type of restraint contemplated by the law during the alleged incident. However, Judge Cochran declined to dismiss the case on that basis, indicating that the litigation was still too early for such a narrowly focused determination, and if he were to dismiss the case at this stage, "I’d have trouble sleeping," he said. According to reports from the courtroom, the judge stated that he was not prepared to "be cutting the line that finely" at the pleading stage and suggested that the allegations, as presented, were sufficient to allow discovery and further factual development.
The judge also indicated that some of Walters' claims relating to alleged concealment by Marilyn Manson Records could face additional scrutiny later in the case, but nevertheless concluded that they too should survive for now. He emphasized that the defendants would have another opportunity to challenge the claims through a motion for summary judgment after evidence has been gathered and the application of AB 250 can be examined more fully.
Following the ruling, Warner's attorney Howard King characterized the decision as procedural rather than substantive.
"This was not unexpected," King said. "It's a clear invitation for a summary judgment motion. The judge telegraphed explicitly that we're not at the right stage of the case yet."
King has previously maintained that Warner denies the allegations and has argued that Walters is pursuing only a limited claim revived under the new statute. Following the January ruling, he stated that the revived claim "will not survive the next motion for summary judgment" and asserted that Warner "never committed any sexual assault."
Walters' attorney, Bina Ahmad, welcomed the June 5 decision.
"We are obviously pleased," Ahmad said. "We truly take the inspiration to keep fighting from our client. She's the brave one."
The ruling marks another significant development in a lawsuit that has seen multiple procedural twists over the past several years. While the court has not ruled on the truth or falsity of Walters' allegations, Judge Cochran's latest decision confirms that the claims are legally sufficient to proceed and that factual questions should be addressed through further litigation rather than dismissal at the pleading stage.
The parties are scheduled to return to court for a Case Management Conference on August 12, 2026, in Department 306 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles, where the court will set deadlines and procedures for the next phase of the case.
A Brief Timeline of the Ashley Walters Lawsuit
May 2021 – Lawsuit Filed
Ashley Walters, who worked as Manson's personal assistant in 2010–2011, filed a civil lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging sexual assault, sexual battery, harassment, discrimination, emotional distress, and related claims. Warner denied the allegations.
May 2022 – First Dismissal
The trial court dismissed Walters' lawsuit, finding that it was barred by the statute of limitations and rejecting her attempt to proceed under California's delayed-discovery rule.
December 2023 – Appeal Revives the Case
California's Second District Court of Appeal revived the lawsuit, ruling that Walters should be allowed to attempt to prove that trauma and repressed memories delayed her discovery of the alleged abuse. The case was sent back to the trial court.
2024–2025 – Litigation Continues
Following the appellate victory, the parties continued litigating the case in Los Angeles Superior Court. Warner's attorneys continued to challenge the claims on statute-of-limitations grounds.
December 16, 2025 – Second Dismissal
Judge Steve Cochran again dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Walters' claims did not qualify for the delayed-discovery exception and were therefore time-barred. The dismissal came shortly before a scheduled trial.
January 2026 – AB 250 Revives the Case
California's new Assembly Bill 250 took effect on January 1, 2026. The law created a temporary revival window for certain previously time-barred sexual assault claims. Walters moved for reconsideration under the new statute, and Judge Cochran reinstated the lawsuit on January 26, 2026.
March–June 2026 – Third Amended Complaint
Walters filed a Third Amended Complaint seeking to proceed under AB 250. Warner responded with a demurrer and motion to strike, arguing that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements of the new law.
June 5, 2026 – Manson's Challenge Rejected
Judge Cochran overruled the demurrer and denied the motion to strike, allowing Walters' Third Amended Complaint to proceed. The court ordered Warner to file an answer within twenty days and set a further Case Management Conference for August 12, 2026. The ruling did not decide the truth of the allegations but held that the case could continue.
Current Status
As of June 2026, Walters' lawsuit remains active. The case has survived Manson's latest dismissal effort and is moving forward into the discovery and pretrial stages, where the parties will continue litigating whether Walters' claims qualify under AB 250 and whether the allegations can ultimately be proven.
One interesting aspect of the case is that it has now been revived twice: first by the California Court of Appeal in 2023, and then by the California Legislature's enactment of AB 250 in 2026.