PRETRIAL ORDER - 1/6 

 The Honorable James P. Donohue 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 

JOE SPRINKLE AND LAURA SPRINKLE) 

husband and wife and the mari- ) 

tal community composed thereof,)Case Number: CV05-1898JPD 

 ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) PRETRIAL ORDER 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

SB&C, LTD, aka SKAGIT BONDED ) 

COLLECTORS, and CRAIG CAMMOCK ) 

& JANE DOE CAMMOCK, husband ) 

and wife, and the marital ) 

community composed thereof, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

JURISDICTION 

 Found in the Order allowing Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

ADMITTED FACTS 

 Findings of Fact were made in the Order allowing 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

CLAIMS AND DEFENSES 

 1. Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to statutory 

damages under the FDCPA in the sum of $4,000. 

 2. Defendants contend that the maximum statutory damages 

under the FDCPA are the sum of $1,000, and that plaintiffs 

cannot prove entitlement to statutory damages. 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 49 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 6
PRETRIAL ORDER - 2/6 

 3. Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to the following 

damages: emotional distress, money garnished, extra telephone 

calls to Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon, Oregon, money borrowed 

from Josh Kohl in Saudi Arabia, and from Mrs. Sprinkle's 

grandmother in Lebanon, Oregon, and attorney's fees in the 

Whatcom County District Court action. 

 4. Defendants contend that none of the actual damages 

claimed by plaintiffs result from the failure to file the SCRA 

affidavit, and that the attorney fees from Whatcom County are 

not recoverable in a collateral action. 

ISSUES OF LAW 

 1. Have plaintiffs proved entitlement to statutory 

damages under the FDCPA as a result of the violation found by 

the Court? If so, how much damages have been proved? 

 2. Have plaintiffs proved actual damages under the FDCPA 

as a result of the violation found by the Court? If so, how 

much damages have been proved to result from the violation? 

 3. Have plaintiffs proved actual damages under the WCPA 

as a result of the violation found by the Court? If so, how 

much damages have been proved to result from the violation? 

 4. If actual damages under the WCPA are found by this 

Court, is this court going to award plaintiffs treble damages 

up to $10,000 for the violation found by the Court? 

 5. Are attorney fees incurred in the Whatcom County 

matter recoverable in this action? 

NO EXPERT WITNESSES 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 49 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 6
PRETRIAL ORDER - 3/6 

OTHER WITNESSES 

 Plaintiff's witnesses consist of the following: 

 1. Plaintiff, Joe Sprinkle. He will testify on the cost 

of the garnishment and its impact on him in Saudi Arabia. 

 2. Plaintiff, Laura Sprinkle. She will testify about 

the cost of garnishment and its impact on her and the six 

small children she was caring for in Whatcom County. 

 3. Josh Kohl, Mr. Sprinkle's roommate in Saudi Arabia. 

He will testify about the garnishment's impact on Mr. Sprinkle 

and about the money he loaned him. 

 4. Jane Bellew, who works with Operation Home Front for 

servicemembers. She will testify about the garnishment's 

impact on Mrs. Sprinkle. She obtained groceries and other 

necessaries and a Thanksgiving turkey through Operation Home 

Front for Mrs. Sprinkle and the six children. 

 5. Donna Genwuch, Mrs. Sprinkle's mother. She will 

testify about the garnishment's impact on Mrs. Sprinkle. 

 6. Angela . She will testify about the impact of 

the garnishment on Mrs. Sprinkle. 

 Defendants’ witnesses consist of the following: 

 1. Craig Cammock, possible witness as to statutory 

damages, and as to the reasonableness of the attorney fees 

incurred in Whatcom County. 

 2. C. Robert Paciotti, President of SB&C, LTD, possible 

witness as to statutory damages. 

EXHIBITS 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 49 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 6
PRETRIAL ORDER - 4/6 

 Plaintiffs exhibits are as follows: 

 1. November 2004, Verizon telephone bill for the 

plaintiffs' cell phones for extra calls to and from Saudi 

Arabia, and to Lebanon, Oregon, because of the garnishment. 

 2. November 16, 2004, letter from Industrial Credit 

Union showing amount of money garnished. 

 3. November 2004, bank statement from Industrial Credit 

Union bank account for Mrs. Sprinkle's checking account. 

 4. November 2004, bank statement from Industrial Credit 

Union bank account for the account Mr. Sprinkle used to obtain 

money in Saudi Arabia. 

 5. Plaintiffs' interrogatories to defendant, Skagit 

Bonded, and its answers. 

 6. Plaintiffs' requests for production to defendant, 

Skagit Bonded, and its response. 

 Defendants’ potential exhibits are as follows: 

100 Defendants’ First Requests for Interrogatories 

Propounded on Plaintiffs’ 

101 Defendants’ First Requests for Production Propounded 

on Plaintiffs’ 

102 Writ of Garnishment Financial Institution, filed by 

Craig E. Cammock 

103 Judgment & Order to Pay Amount Held by Garnishee, 

filed by Craig E. Cammock 

104 Certified Mail Receipt signed by Laura Sprinkle on 

11/23/2004 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 49 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 6
PRETRIAL ORDER - 5/6 

105 Declaration of Laura Sprinkle in Support of Motion to 

Quash Writ of Garnishment, filed by James Sturdevant 

106 Notice of Appearance, filed by James Sturdevant 

107 Claim of Exemption, filed by James Sturdevant 

 DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 25th day of September, 

2006. 

 /s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 49 Filed 09/25/06 Page 5 of 6
PRETRIAL ORDER - 6/6 

Prepared and presented by: 

 /s/ James Sturdevant 

James Sturdevant #8016 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

119 N. Commercial St. #310 

Bellingham, WA 98225 

360-671-2990 

sturde@openaccess.com 

Copy received and approved: 

 /s/ Jeffrey I. Hasson 

Jeffrey I. Hasson WSBA No. 23741 

Davenport & Hasson, LLP 

Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 49 Filed 09/25/06 Page 6 of 6