For whatever it's worth, this was a default judgment. That means this wasn't the result of a full litigation and trial where a jury found in favor of Bauer after listening to all the evidence. The most likely reason for why that happened here is the defendant never filed an answer to the initial complaint. After enough time passes, the court skips all the usual steps in a normal litigation and goes straight to a default judgment hearing, where the plaintiff enters their facts into the record, uncontested by the other party.
When a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit, it's usually because they never actually received the complaint that was filed and didn't know about it. Given the higher profile nature of this case, I don't really think that's the reason here. Most lawsuits don't have their updates broadcast on Twitter. Regardless as to why she apparently never responded, the result of this case wasn't because the court listened to all the evidence and issued a ruling. It's also worth noting that courts greatly prefer to resolve matters on their merits instead of on procedural grounds like was done here. So there's several avenues where this judgment could be vacated and the case could come back to life.
I don't really know much about the facts of the case, but from what little I've heard, it was based around statements the defendant made claiming she received settlement payments from Bauer. When supposedly what she received was payments from an insurance policy. It wasn't about whether Bauer had assaulted her or not.
None of this is to say that that Bauer necessarily did assault her, but it also doesn't mean that he didn't either. To anyone without an understanding of what a default judgment is, it may sound like it clears up his name when the reality of what actually happened is still murkier than that.
