15.  Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23, FRCivP, as a class action for himself  and as representative of and for, and on behalf of, all other similarly situated persons ("Class  Members"). The Class Members are defined as participants in EMSA’s Utility Fee Program from  2008 through 2013 who were detrimentally affected by Defendants’ fraud, conspiracy to defraud,  and violations of other State and Federal laws which Defendants engaged in in furtherance of their  conspiracy to defraud, as alleged herein. The Class excludes officers or employees of Defendants  and any person or entity whom Plaintiffs' counsel is prohibited from representing under the  Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.   17.  Plaintiff has been informed and believes, and on such information and belief allege,  that the individual loss and potential recovery of each Class Member is such that each is precluded  from individually litigating the claims asserted herein by reason of the burdens, costs and expenses  involved and that many Class Members will never have their day in court unless this action  proceeds as a class action.   18.  This action is governed by Federal law.   19.  There are substantial questions of law and fact common to the claims of the Class  Members against defendants.   20.  The claims of Class Plaintiff is typical of the claims of each and all of the Class  Members and are based upon and arise out of the identical facts concerning the conduct of the  defendants.   21.  Plaintiff is situated to, capable of, and will fairly and adequately represent the  interests of the Class Members. Because of the similarity and identity of claims of Plaintiff and  the individual Class Members, the successful assertion of Plaintiffs' claims herein will result in the  determination of law and facts adequate to prove the liability of defendants to each Class Member.   22.  The prosecution of separate actions by the individual Class Members, even if  possible, would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications or verdicts that may establish  incompatible standards of conduct for defendants.   23.  Defendants’ acts alleged herein are applicable to all Class Members, making the   relief sought generally applicable to all of the Class Members.   25.  A class action is superior to other available methods, if in fact any such other  methods are available (which Plaintiffs deny), for the fair and efficient adjudication of the matters  alleged herein.  26.  EMSA was established in 1977, and operates a Public Utility Model of ambulance  services in Tulsa and Oklahoma City.   27.  As a public trust, EMSA does not provide the ambulance services, but contracts with a  private contractor to provide ambulance services in Tulsa and Oklahoma City.   28.  From 1994 to 1998, EMSA’s private contractor was American Medical Response  59.  Plaintiff has been a resident of the City of Tulsa during the relevant time period and  paid the TotalCare Fee on his monthly water bill.    60.  Plaintiff relied on the representation from Defendants that the amount of the  TotalCare fee was an accurate representation of the cost of the program.   61.  Plaintiff relied on Defendants to protect his interests and accurately represent the  costs of providing ambulance services.   62.  In paying the TotalCare fee, Plaintiff did not consent to the scheme orchestrated  by Defendants.    63.  Plaintiff did not consent to being overcharged for the TotalCare program, and does  not consent to the money received from the TotalCare program  being used as kickbacks and for  various expenses.   64.  Plaintiff did not consent to the TotalCare fees being used, in part, to contribute to  political campaigns.  65.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations set forth above.   66.  Count I is for fraud and arises under the common law of Oklahoma.   68.  Defendants, and each of them, intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiffs that the  charges being paid for emergency ambulance services were being paid pursuant to a legal contract,  and not an illegal kickback scheme.   69.  Throughout the Claim Period, Defendants, and each of them, made at least one false   material misrepresentation to Plaintiffs through solicitations of Plaintiffs to pay to participate in the  EMSA TotalCare Program; which misrepresentation was made as a positive assertion which was  known by Defendants to be false when made; which misrepresentation was made with the intention  that Plaintiffs would act on it and participate in the EMSA TotalCare Program; and which Plaintiffs  relied on to their detriment in enrolling (and continuing to enroll) in the EMSA TotalCare Program;  and which caused Plaintiffs actual hard and damages.    70.  Plaintiffs did not know, and could not have known of the illegal acts of the defendants   herein alleged until the Qui Tam Complaint had been unsealed, on January 17, 2017.    71.  Each class member has suffered actual damages because the illegal and fraudulent   kickback scheme alleged herein directly caused the cost of the TotalCare charged to each Class  Member to be higher than it otherwise would have been.  72.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations set forth above.   73.  Count II is for conspiracy to defraud and arises under the common law of Oklahoma.   74.  Defendants Williamson, Torrence, EMSA, ETMC System and ETMC Services all  conspired together  to do an unlawful act, that is, violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C.  §1320a-7b (the “AKS”)   76.  Each class member has suffered actual damages because the illegal and fraudulent   kickback scheme alleged herein directly caused the cost of the TotalCare charged to each Class  Member to be higher than it otherwise would have been.  77.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations set forth above.   78.  Count III is for violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18   U.S.C.A. Section 1962, et seq (the “RICO” statute).  RICO provides a private right of action in federal  court for individuals injured in their business or property through fraudulent conduct.   79.  Here, Defendants Williamson, Torrence, ETMC System, ETMC Services and EMSA,  through a  conspiracy to defraud, did: actively and intentionally defraud Plaintiffs and others; through  a criminal enterprise to violate the AKS, succeed in having EMSA award an over-cost contract to  EMTC, in violation of the Federal kickback statute, and to renew that illegal contract through additional  criminal conduct which was also in violation of the criminal anti-kickback statute; and, all of which  conduct constituted a pattern of racketeering activity.     80.  Each class member has suffered actual damages because the illegal and fraudulent  kickback scheme alleged herein directly caused the cost of the Utility Fee Program charged to each  Class Member to be higher than it otherwise would have been.  82.  Defendant EMSA’s inadequate policies, practices and procedures oversight of its  officers and employees resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiffs’ well established Constitutional rights  under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.   83.  Defendant EMSA’s failure to supervise its officers and employees amounts to  deliberate indifference.   84.  Defendant EMSA made a conscious choice by failing to adequately supervise its  officers and employees which resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiffs’ well established Constitutional  rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.   85.  Defendant EMSA’s policy, practices, customs and procedures are nonexistent or  wholly inadequate given the great power, authority and deference given to its officers and/or  employees.   86.  Defendant EMSA knew or should have known that Defendants Williamson and/or  Torrence were likely to engage in the acts set forth above.   87.  Defendant EMSA authorized or ratified the actions of Defendants Williamson and/or  Torrence   88.  As a result of Defendant EMSA’s actions, policies, procedures and customs, Plaintiffs  suffered damages.  89.  Defendant Williamson is the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant EMSA.   90.  As Chief Executive Officer of Defendant EMSA, Defendant Williamson acted  under color of state law.    92.  Defendant Williamson’s actions led to a violation of Plaintiffs’ well established  Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.    93.  Defendant Williamson’s actions are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.  94.  Defendant Torrence is the Chief Financial Officer of Defendant EMSA.   95.  As Chief Financial Officer of Defendant EMSA, Defendant Torrence acted under  color of state law.    96.  Defendant Torrence’s actions were in violation of the policies and procedures of  Defendant EMSA.   97.  Defendant Torrence’s actions led to a violation of Plaintiffs’ well established  Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.    98.  Defendant Torrence’s actions are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.  CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD   FRAUD   VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED   CORRUP ORGANIZATIONS ACT   Violation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights by Defendant EMSA  (42 U.S.C. §1983)   Violation of Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights by Defendant Williamson  (42 U.S.C. §1983)   Violation of Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights by Defendant Torrence  (42 U.S.C. §1983)  