With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for subsequent individual trials. This common question is sufficient to carry questions that, though concerning facts regarding individual class members, can be answered ministerially. Specifically, a straightforward, ministerial review of Defendants’ documents will determine whether (1) the affidavits sent to the class members in support of writs of garnishment described unawarded attorney fees and costs as “judgment” amounts, (2) the affidavits were sent within the statute of limitations period for the FDCPA, WCAA and WCPA, and (3) the affidavits were delivered to the debtor class members, since Defendants would have certified mail or personal service records for the affidavits, see Wash. Rev.Code § 6.27.130; see also Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865, 868 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds these questions

A: holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner
B: holding that harm under the fdcpa does not occur until receipt of the collection notice and that if the notice were lost in the mail it is unlikely an fdcpa violation would have occurred
C: holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
D: holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established
B.