(Declaratory Relief Pursuant To 28 U.S.C §2201)   23.  On August 21, 2015 Plaintiff Cowen’s minor son, Jarrett Cowen sustained an  injury which required medical attention. He was transported by ambulance to the emergency  room at Lake Regional Hospital, Osage Beach, Missouri.  The medical personal at Lake  Regional recommended that he be transported by helicopter to the University of Missouri  Hospital in Columbia Missouri, approximately 60 miles away.  On August 21, 2015, Defendants  transported Plaintiff Cowen’s son to University of Missouri Hospital in Columbia Missouri.   24.  No express oral or written contract was agreed to between Plaintiff Cowen and  Defendants regarding the price Defendants would charge for the transportation of Jarrett Cowen,  and Defendants did not state the price Defendants charged for their services. Nor did Plaintiff  Cowen agree to any price or other consideration to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants for  transportation.   25.  Defendants transported Jarret Cowen and minor, without any agreement regarding  the prices Defendants would charge for that transportation.   26.  Following the transport, Defendants billed Plaintiff Cowen a total of $47,128.30  and itemized this charge as $28,038.70 as the Helicopter Rotor Base charge, along with an  additional $19,089.60 for 60 miles of transport.  See Exhibit A, September 4, 2015 Invoice.       28.  Plaintiff Cowen’s medical insurance provider paid Defendants $4,955.17.  See  Exhibit B, October 27, 2015.   29.  On June 15, 2016 Defendants billed Plaintiff Cowen $42,172.53, the charged  amount and demanded payment.  See Exhibit C, June 15, 2016.   30.  On July 29, 2016 Defendants informed Plaintiff Cowen that they would initiate  collection efforts stating:  “Without you[r] participation to resolve your account, it will be sent to  a professional Collection Agency.  Keep in mind that the agency may report this account to  national credit bureau’s as a BAD DEBT and add all legally allowed interest and fees.”  See  Exhibit D, July 29, 2016.   31.  On January 24, 2017, Defendants placed the “debt” with “MediCredit Inc.” a  collection agency for collections and charged Plaintiff Cowen an additional $5,938.82 in  “interest”, for a total of $48,111.35.  See Exhibit E, January 24, 2017.   32.  Plaintiff Keith Kranhold is the executor of the Estate of Kenneth Kranhold.     33.  On November 14, 2015 Plaintiff’s decedent Kenneth Kranhold sustained an injury  requiring medical attention.  As a result of the injury Kenneth Kranhold was unconscious and  remained so until his death on November 18, 2015.   34.  On November 14, 2015 Kenneth Kranhold was admitted to Yavapai Hospital,  Prescott, Arizona from which he was transported by Defendants to Banner Thunderbird Medical  Center, Glendale, Arizona, approximately 68 miles.     36.  Defendants transported Kenneth Kranhold, deceased, without any agreement  regarding the price Defendants would charge for that transportation.   37.  Following the transport, Defendants billed decedent Plaintiff Kranhold a total of  $54,999.00 and itemized this charge as $25,258.61 as the Helicopter Rotor Base charge, along  with an additional $29,740.39 for 68 miles of transport.  See Exhibit F, December 24, 2015   Invoice.       38.  The Defendants’ invoice was submitted to Plaintiff Kranhold’s decedent’s health  insurance provider Compass Rose Health Plan and claims and administered by United  Healthcare (UMR) (collectively “Kranhold Medical Insurance Provider”).   39.  Kranhold’s Medical Insurance Provider paid Defendants $12,612.25.  See Exhibit  G, March 30, 2016.   40.  On September 13, 2016 Defendants billed the Estate of Kenneth Kranhold  $42,386.75.  See Exhibit H, September 13, 2016.   41.  Defendants have threatened the initiation of collection efforts if they are is not  paid $42,386.75.   42.  Neither Plaintiff Kranhold, nor Plaintiff Kranhold’s decedent ever agreed to pay  the prices charged by the Defendants for the transportation services provided.  44.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to redefine the Proposed Class prior to class  certification.   45.  The members of the Proposed Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   46.  The exact number of Class members is unknown as such information is in  the exclusive control of Defendants. However, due to the nature of the trade and commerce  involved, Plaintiffs believe the Proposed Class consists of thousands of Class Members.   48.  The claims and defenses of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims and  defenses of the Proposed Class. Plaintiffs and all members of the C lass have been charged  by the Defendants prices for transportation mileage and helicopter rotor base that they did not  agree to prior to transportation of patients.    50.  A class action provides a fair and efficient method for the adjudication of  this controversy for the following reasons:  a.  The common questions of law and fact set forth herein predominate over  any questions affecting only individual class members;  b.  The Class is so numerous as to make joinder impracticable but not so numerous  as to create manageability problems;  c.  There are no unusual legal or factual issues which would create  manageability problems;  d.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would  create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications against Defendants  when confronted with incompatible standards of conduct; and  e.  Adjudications with  respect  to  individual  members  of  the  Class  could,  as   a practical matter, be dispositive of any interest of other members not  parties to such adjudications, or substantially impair their ability to protect  their interests.  51.  Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class incorporate the preceding and succeeding  paragraphs as though set forth herein at length.   53.  In all instances, Defendants seek assistance form the Plaintiffs and the Proposed  Class to obtain third party payment for the charged amounts.   54.  In the event there is no third party payment or that payment is less than the  charged amounts Defendants demand payment (“balance bill”) and initiate detrimental collection  efforts against Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.    55.  In the event Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class do not pay Defendants the charged  amounts, Defendants threaten collection, report the unpaid charged amount as Bad Debt to credit  reporting agencies, accrue interest and fees, and ultimately suit in state court for the amounts  charged, or for the purpose of coercing Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class in compromise  payments that they do not owe, and Defendants cannot legally collect.   56.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief for the purposes of determining  questions of actual controversy between the Plaintiffs, the Proposed Class and Defendants.   57.  Defendants have acted in a uniform manner in failing to enter into a contract with  respect to the price it would charge for transportation services before rendering their services,  balance bill the Plaintiffs and the Class, in the event the charged amounts are not paid, and  engage in collection efforts.   59.  Defendants have demanded payment of the charged amounts from the Plaintiffs  and the Proposed Class, and have threatened or initiated collection efforts against the Plaintiffs  and the Proposed Class.   60.  There is an actual dispute and controversy between Plaintiffs and the Proposed  Class, and Defendants as to whether Defendants can demand payment for services concerning  which no price was agreed, can engage in collection efforts where no legally enforceable  contract exists, can impose interest and costs of collection on Plaintiffs and the Class, and  whether any attempt by Defendants to collect the amounts charged under the circumstances is  prohibited by the preemption provisions of the  Airline Deregulation Act, 49 USC §41713.   61.  Plaintiffs and the Class have no adequate remedy at law.   63.  Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class further seek a prospective order from the Court  requiring Defendants to: (1) cease charging for the transporting of patients without an express  agree as to the rates for mileage and helicopter rotor base; and (2) to cease Defendants’ attempts  to collect outstanding bills for which no express agreement as to price exists from Plaintiff and  the Members of the Proposed Class.   64.  Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class seek the disgorgement by Defendants of all  sums collected by the Defendants from third party payers, and the Proposed Class who have paid  any amounts charged by the Defendants and other relief as set forth in the prayer below.   65.  Defendants collection efforts, damage the credit of Plaintiffs and the Class, cause  they to incur legal fees and litigation expenses, expose Plaintiffs and the Class to claims for  interest on unpaid Defendants’ charges and vexing and harassing collection efforts. As a result of  Defendants’ practices as described above, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have suffered, and  will continue to suffer, irreparable harm and injury.   