Request for Order – Implementation of Special Master
Respondent Bryan Crawley (Father) filed a Request for Order on April 13, 2026, seeking entry of an order implementing the appointment of a special master appointed by the parties under California Code of Civil Procedure section 638. Petitioner Jennifer Tedesko (Mother) filed a Responsive Declaration on May 1, 2026, opposing the request and seeking sanctions.
This dispute arises out of a Stipulated Protective Order re: Financial Records Exchanged for Bonus Support True-Ups and Child Custody Support Add-ons Expenses filed with this Court August 13, 2025. Under the terms of the stipulation and order, the parties agreed to the appointment of a special master pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 638. Despite the clarity of the underlying stipulation and order, the parties are experiencing difficulty implementing the order.
Mother is directed to file with this Court a proposed order.
The parties are ordered to appear. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 7.12(C), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.
IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department B. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department B for video conference via a link on the court website. Litigants in the virtual courtroom are required to leave the video screen on and wait for your case to be called.
FL2001314
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”