\n<\/p>\n
\n\tMarilyn Manson<\/a>\u2019s former assistant, Ashley Walters, is turning to a new California law that took effect Jan. 1 to try to revive her sexual abuse lawsuit against the rocker, which a judge rejected in a summary judgment ruling last month.<\/p>\n \n\tThe development comes after Manson, born Brian Warner, declared a major victory<\/a> when the Los Angeles judge dismissed Walters\u2019 complaint on Dec. 16. Rejecting Walters\u2019 argument that she qualified for extra time because her alleged trauma repressed her memories, Judge Steve Cochran found that Walters\u2019 claims dating back to 2010 were simply too old to pursue.<\/p>\n \n\tIn her new court filings obtained by Rolling Stone<\/em>, Walters argues that California\u2019s fledgling statute known as AB 250 applies to her dismissed lawsuit and revives it. In a seven-page motion, she and her lawyers ask Judge Cochran to either vacate his summary judgment ruling or allow them to amend their lawsuit to reflect the new law. They contend AB 250 applies to any action that was pending as of Jan. 1, 2026. Although summary judgment was granted in 2025, they argue no final judgment has yet been entered and note that Warner\u2019s lawyers did not give notice of their intent to file a proposed order of dismissal until Jan. 5. They also would have no choice but to appeal an adverse ruling, they say, and boldly proclaim they expect a higher court to side with them.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cAppealing the court\u2019s ruling would require plaintiff and all parties to expend significant resources, only to have this appeal likely granted and this case before this same court in this same posture,\u201d they write. \u201cFor judicial efficiency, this court should grant plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Reconsideration or Leave to Amend now, rather than force all parties to expend significant resources on appeal and come back to the same place in this litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThe showdown could be one of the first high-profile tests of the new law, which was enacted to help close what many considered a loophole in a predecessor law<\/a>, AB 2777. For the first time, AB 250 opens a fully retroactive two-year filing window in California for any otherwise time-barred claim of adult sexual abuse against an individual perpetrator defendant. Unlike AB 2777, the new statute allows lawsuits against individuals without the need to prove a cover-up or add an entity defendant. (Claims against businesses still require evidence of a cover-up. Public entities such as schools and law enforcement agencies remain off limits.)<\/p>\n