The core issue pertains to whether or not the utilization of CCP 170.6 is REQUIRED, versus simply refusing to stipulate to the use of a commissioner or judge pro tem. Whether or not a judge hears the case or an appointed commissioner/judge pro tem hears the case has zero bearing on Small Claims, it's still Small Claims and the same rules apply. Meaning, the use of a commissioner/judge pro tem is a tactic used to relieve the court of the need to have a judge hear each and every case, hence the need for a stipulation to even exist.

Every case is special, irregardless of where it takes place, my case took over a year to get filed, 4 months to get scheduled and theres been a 4 month continuance filed, special or not I would prefer that a judge with all the authority afforded a judge hear my case, as is my right, after over 20 months of waiting and likely having to deal with an appeal, thus extending the duration for any semblance of justice to occur out to over 2 years.

How "special" the case is is a matter of opinion, my question is one simply of procedure, the details of my case shouldn't hold any relevance.

As it turns out my question is answered in Rule 2.816.. Specifically 2.816 (e) which states:

"(e) Application or motion to withdraw stipulation

An application or motion to withdraw a stipulation for the appointment of a temporary judge must be supported by a declaration of facts establishing good cause for permitting the party to withdraw the stipulation. In addition:

(1)The application or motion must be heard by the presiding judge or a judge designated by the presiding judge.

(2)A declaration that a ruling by a temporary judge is based on an error of fact or law does not establish good cause for withdrawing a stipulation.

(3)The application or motion must be served and filed, and the moving party must provide a copy to the presiding judge.

(4)If the application or motion for withdrawing the stipulation is based on grounds for the disqualification of, or limitation of the appearance by, the temporary judge first learned or arising after the temporary judge has made one or more rulings, but before the temporary judge has completed judicial action in the proceeding, the temporary judge, unless the disqualification or termination is waived, must disqualify himself or herself. But in the absence of good cause, the rulings the temporary judge has made up to that time must not be set aside by the judicial officer or temporary judge who replaces the temporary judge."

Additionally these rules state very clearly a written stipulation is NOT required. A plaque or sign clearly stating all proceedings are taken under consideration by a commissioner or judge pro tem works, assuming both parties raise no objection to such.

A well written article detailing the legal background to stipulation to a commissioner or judge pro tem:

Rules for stipulating to a commissioner

So, it would appear that you CAN in fact raise an objection to the use of a commissioner or judge pro tem much the same way you would use CCP 170.6 by virtue of [being] supported by a declaration of facts establishing good cause for permitting the party to withdraw the stipulation.

This would preserve the use of CCP 170.6 and force the proceeding to take place in front of a judge.

For further clarification, my complaint has already been referred to the SD City Atty by virtue of the National City City Atty in conjunction with the OIG. None of the entities will do anything until my cases (all 3 are in Small Claims) have all been heard and ruled upon, so all I've been permitted to do is stay in touch with an investigator with the City Attys office, keeping him abreast of where each case is currently positioned, this current one being the first of the three.