Blab Music
Judge Rejects Marilyn Mansons Bid to Dismiss Ashley Walters Sexual-Assault Lawsuit
In a courtroom showdown that has drawn the attention of both music insiders and legal observers, a Los Angeles County judge denied rock star Marilyn Manson’s attempt to drop a sexual‑assault suit filed by his former personal assistant, Ashley Walters. On June 5, 2026, Judge Steve Cochran ruled that the allegations in Walters’ third amended complaint are still viable and that the case can advance.
Walters first sued Manson in 2021, accusing the singer of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, battery, interference with civil rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint was dismissed in December 2025 because the claims fell outside the statute of limitations. The lawsuit was revived in early 2026 after California’s Assembly Bill 250 (AB 250) took effect on January 1, 2026, extending the time window for adult sexual‑assault claims.
The February 2026 filing details an incident that allegedly occurred in May 2010 while Walters worked at Manson’s home studio. According to the complaint, Manson pushed Walters onto a bed, pinned her arms, and tried to kiss her. Walters reportedly pulled away, after which Manson is said to have moved behind her, bit her ear, grabbed her hand, and placed it in his underwear. Walters contends that these actions constitute sexual assault.
Manson’s attorney, Alexa Foley, contended that the allegations did not qualify for revival under AB 250 and that Walters had not demonstrated any physical restraint. Foley argued that the described intimate touching did not meet the legal definition of assault.
Judge Cochran rejected Foley’s arguments. He stated that the allegations are sufficiently robust to allow the case to proceed while the parties gather evidence to determine whether the claims qualify under AB 250. Cochran warned that it was premature to “cut the line” and urged the case to move to the next stage.
The judge also addressed Walters’ claims that Manson’s company, Marilyn Manson Records, covered up the alleged assault. Cochran said those claims might be vulnerable but remained strong enough to stay in the complaint for now. He indicated that Manson and his lawyers could challenge the claims again in a motion for summary judgment after more evidence is collected.
Manson’s lawyer, Howard King, said the decision was not unexpected, noting that the judge had indicated the case was not yet at the right stage. Walters’ attorney, Kate McFarlane, expressed disappointment that the dismissal was wrong and highlighted the delayed‑discovery rule. Bina Ahmad, representing Walters, said the client was pleased and would continue to pursue the case.
Judge Cochran scheduled a case‑management conference for August. The court has not yet ruled on whether the claims will ultimately be dismissed or proceed to trial.
The lawsuit is separate from Manson’s recent touring activities, which include a new backing band and an international summer tour with Rob Zombie, The Hu, and/or Orgy. The legal dispute remains unresolved.
The case illustrates the impact of California’s new statute of limitations on sexual‑assault claims and the ongoing legal scrutiny faced by high‑profile musicians.
The lawsuit is still pending, and no further court orders have been issued beyond the August conference.
Walters first sued Manson in 2021, accusing the singer of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, battery, interference with civil rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint was dismissed in December 2025 because the claims fell outside the statute of limitations. The lawsuit was revived in early 2026 after California’s Assembly Bill 250 (AB 250) took effect on January 1, 2026, extending the time window for adult sexual‑assault claims.
The February 2026 filing details an incident that allegedly occurred in May 2010 while Walters worked at Manson’s home studio. According to the complaint, Manson pushed Walters onto a bed, pinned her arms, and tried to kiss her. Walters reportedly pulled away, after which Manson is said to have moved behind her, bit her ear, grabbed her hand, and placed it in his underwear. Walters contends that these actions constitute sexual assault.
Manson’s attorney, Alexa Foley, contended that the allegations did not qualify for revival under AB 250 and that Walters had not demonstrated any physical restraint. Foley argued that the described intimate touching did not meet the legal definition of assault.
Judge Cochran rejected Foley’s arguments. He stated that the allegations are sufficiently robust to allow the case to proceed while the parties gather evidence to determine whether the claims qualify under AB 250. Cochran warned that it was premature to “cut the line” and urged the case to move to the next stage.
The judge also addressed Walters’ claims that Manson’s company, Marilyn Manson Records, covered up the alleged assault. Cochran said those claims might be vulnerable but remained strong enough to stay in the complaint for now. He indicated that Manson and his lawyers could challenge the claims again in a motion for summary judgment after more evidence is collected.
Manson’s lawyer, Howard King, said the decision was not unexpected, noting that the judge had indicated the case was not yet at the right stage. Walters’ attorney, Kate McFarlane, expressed disappointment that the dismissal was wrong and highlighted the delayed‑discovery rule. Bina Ahmad, representing Walters, said the client was pleased and would continue to pursue the case.
Judge Cochran scheduled a case‑management conference for August. The court has not yet ruled on whether the claims will ultimately be dismissed or proceed to trial.
The lawsuit is separate from Manson’s recent touring activities, which include a new backing band and an international summer tour with Rob Zombie, The Hu, and/or Orgy. The legal dispute remains unresolved.
The case illustrates the impact of California’s new statute of limitations on sexual‑assault claims and the ongoing legal scrutiny faced by high‑profile musicians.
The lawsuit is still pending, and no further court orders have been issued beyond the August conference.
