OK, first you stated:
But then you later described how your rights were violated with you not being present during your sentencing and how you will be appealing.
So which is it? Was this related to your case or was it not related to your case?
That does raise one question, I'm sure you'll have to agree... The question is: Are you suggesting that this "monitor" attempted a good faith effort to correct an error committed by the trial judge only to end up committing an error of his own in the process? And who monitors him?
I've only mentioned that one bit there and I can think of ten or more questions about the details of the case and the sentence and how I couldn't even begin to provide a remotely reasonable or meaningful answer without knowing more about the case, and in particular the original sentence and the "corrected" sentence.
Certainly not an appeal.. Meaning you would not be requesting the appellate division to review the case, but then again, you mentioned some "errors" that were "appeal worthy"... So, again, stuck between knowing an appeal is not a simple request for answers, and an appeal being the only manner where alleged judicial errors are reviewed along with a record of the case and a determination is made to whether errors were indeed committed and whether they were material errors -meaning they impacted the outcome- and a remand or a dismissal is a likely remedy or whether they were immaterial and can simply be over looked.
But then there are also "alleged errors" which end up being the defendant's dismay and dissatisfaction with the outcome. Those unfortunately are neither errors nor are they appealable!
The "city" had nothing to do with your sentencing original or subsequent, in fact the only thing that the city shares with the court is that one (presumably the court) is located within the other! (Well, maybe, just maybe... And assuming the court building is old enough, it may have been the "Municipal Court" way back when... But that is no longer the case).
The courts in California are known as "Superior Courts of California -[County Name] Courthouse. But even then, you are still far off from suing the county to get this corrected if there was any error as you describe.
As for the remedy you're hoping for, I would suggest you not get your hopes to high up. At least not =in the way you're planning it... For starters, suing the [entity] (whatever it maybe for violating your rights) would simply occur in a trial court. And in all honesty, I don't think a trial court has jurisdiction to order another trial court to do anything. For such an order, you'll have to go to the appellate. Which at first, you seemed enthusiastic about, and yet now, (are you) trying to avoid?
I must also say that your story is confusing enough simply because I am unable to find any indication that judges are monitored in the manner which you describe, and if they are, it is not part of their "first day on the job". Clearly, I am sure you would agree, such method would be described in a set of rules that are published -in the least- on the California Courts website. I searched though the California Court Rules and though there are many instances and different circumstances under which the word "monitor" appears in there, I git the impression that monitoring of judges (actually pro-tems) was conducted through court recordings and NOT by having another "judge" sit in and watch a proceeding. Nowadays, and with all the budget cuts the courts have been put through, I would think that judges would be overwhelmed with cases that they would not have time to sit through entire trials simply to monitor a subordinate.
So help us out here... Any references to such policy, rule or law??? And if so, where do those appear?
One last point to clarify...
Well, you did indicarte that this was a "traffic matter and though there are some that could be misdemeanors, maybe even felonies, I assume yours was a simple infraction, and infractions, by their very nature, do not qualify for jury trials!
From Penal Code section 19.6.
An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him or her unless he or she is arrested and not released on his or her written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance, or a deposit of bail.