govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03891-11

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 
RONDA OSINEK, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC, 
et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER OVERRULING MAZIK’S 
OBJECTION TO STIPULATION 
 
Docket Nos. 468-69 
 
 
 
 
Previously, the government, Relators Osinek and Taylor, and Kaiser entered into a 
settlement agreement in which Kaiser agreed to pay the United States $556 million. The 
government and Relators, in turn, agreed that the United States would pay Osinek approximately 
$95.4 million (representing the “Relator Share”). Subsequently, a third party, Mazik, argued that 
he should also be given a share of the settlement. The Court denied that motion, and Mazik has 
appealed. 
Currently pending before the Court is a stipulation between the government and Relators. 
Following Mazik’s appeal, the government and Relators reached an agreement that Osinek would 
be paid approximately $50.7 million of the Relator Share now and that the balance would be 
deposited with the Court. If Mazik were not to prevail on his appeal, Relators would be entitled to 
the balance. If Mazik were to prevail, Relators reserve the right to seek the balance of the Relator 
Share while the government reserves the right to seek to renegotiate the amount of the Share 
“given multiple relators’ competing claims to the government’s recovery.” Stip. ¶ 8. 
In response to the stipulation, Mazik essentially filed an objection. He argues that the full 
Relator Share should be paid now because he did not challenge that amount and sought to be paid 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
out of the government share only. Mazik speculates that the government is trying to “pit[] the 
Osinek relators against [him], creating an unnecessary conflict where none exists.” Resp. at 3. 
The Court overrules Mazik’s objection. He lacks standing to assert the interests of either 
Relator. To the extent Mazik asks the Court to order the government and/or Relators to produce to 
him their agreement (and the recent amendment thereto) under which the government agreed to 
pay out the Relator Share, the request is also denied. As the Court previously held, whether Mazik 
is entitled to a share of the settlement does not turn on what the government agreed to pay 
Relators. See Docket No. 438 (“If the Court agrees with Mr. Mazik that he is entitled to a share, 
then those agreements may be relevant. However, at this juncture, the question is whether Mr. 
Mazik is entitled to any share. That issue depends on the scope of his claims and the scope of the 
U.S.'s claims as well as the other relators’ claims.”). 
The Court shall forthwith approve the stipulation submitted by the government and 
Relators. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: May 12, 2026 
 
______________________________________ 
EDWARD M. CHEN 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight