Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.

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
POP TOP CORP,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAKUTEN KOBO INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 20-cv-04482-YGR (DMR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CORRECT WRIT OF EXECUTION
Re: Dkt. No. 193
On October 8, 2025, the clerk of court issued a writ of execution in the amount of
$288,534.27 as to Defendant Pop Top Corp. and Judgment Debtor Rohit Chandra. [Docket
No. 187.] Chandra now moves to correct the post-judgment interest calculation and for a temporary
stay of the enforcement of the writ. [Docket No. 192 (Mot.).] Judgment Creditor Rakuten Kobo,
Inc. (“Kobo”) filed an opposition (Docket No. 198 (Opp’n)), and Chandra filed a reply (Docket
No. 199 (Reply)).
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without oral argument. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the relevant legal authority, and
the record in this case, the court denies Chandra’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The court’s prior orders contain a detailed history of this litigation. [Docket Nos. 121, 134,
153, 185.] As is relevant here, on June 25, 2021, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
Kobo, and entered judgment accordingly. [Docket Nos. 50, 54.] On March 28, 2022, the court
found that Kobo was entitled to $274,721.43 in attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act and ordered
Pop Top to pay Kobo within 30 days. [Docket No. 77.] Chandra was subsequently added as a
judgment debtor. [Docket No. 134; see Docket No. 121.]
Chandra appealed the undersigned’s order granting summary judgment and order awarding
Case 4:20-cv-04482-YGR Document 201 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 4

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
attorneys’ fees to the Federal Circuit and filed numerous motions seeking to delay execution of the
judgment.1 [Docket Nos. 67, 78, 146, 158, 161, 169.] On June 30, 2025, Kobo requested that the
clerk of court issue writs of execution against Pop Top and Chandra in the amount of $288,534.27,
which represented a $274,721.43 judgment, plus $13,812.84 in post-judgment interest. [Docket
Nos. 154, 154-1, 166-1.] Over Chandra’s objections (Docket No. 164), the undersigned granted in
part Kobo’s request for issuance of writs of execution2 (Docket No. 185). On October 8, 2025, the
clerk of court issued the writ of execution in the amount of $288,534.27. [Docket No. 187.]
II. DISCUSSION
A. Date of Accrual
Chandra argues that interest only accrued on August 15, 2025, when he was added as a
judgment debtor, because he was not a party prior to that point. Mot. at 6. Chandra’s position is
incorrect.
Post-judgment “interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a
rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961(a). “Courts have interpreted this to mean that post-judgment interest is calculated from the
date of the judgment establishing the right to the award.” Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. 02 Micro
Int’l Ltd., No. C 08-4567 CW, 2012 WL 1577365, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012), aff’d sub
nom. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 726 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (cleaned
up).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) further provides “[t]he procedure on execution--and
in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the
1 The Federal Circuit affirmed both orders. [Docket Nos. 80, 82.] On January 15, 2025, Chandra
filed a third appeal of the court’s order finding him to be an alter ego of Pop Top and adding him as
a judgment debtor. [Docket No. 145.] That appeal remains pending, and the case has been
submitted on the briefs. Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc. (“Pop Top III”), Case No. 25-1392
(Fed. Cir.), Docket Nos. 44, 53.
2 The court denied Kobo’s request insofar as the writs were directed to property in Stanislaus and
Sacramento Counties. [Docket No. 185 at 6.]
Case 4:20-cv-04482-YGR Document 201 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 4

3
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
procedure of the state where the court is located.” See Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-
MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) (“This circuit has approved the use of the state
procedure in federal court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a).”). In California,
“postjudgment interest on such awards runs from the date the amount of the fee award is fixed, not
from the date of the original judgment.” Lucky United Props. Inv., Inc. v. Lee, 213 Cal. App. 4th
635, 651 (2013), as modified on denial of reh’g (Feb. 26, 2013).
The fee award was fixed when the court awarded Kobo attorneys’ fees on March 28, 2022;
the date of the award did not change by when Judge Gonzalez Rogers added Chandra as a judgment
debtor on grounds that Chandra is the alter ego of Pop Top and had control over the litigation such
that his interests were virtually represented. Docket No. 134; see McClellan v. Northridge Park
Townhome Owners Ass’n, Inc., 89 Cal. App. 4th 746, 752 (2001) (“[J]udgments are typically
“amended to add additional judgment debtors on the grounds that a person or entity is the alter ego
of the original judgment debtor. . . . Such a procedure is an appropriate and complete method by
which to bind new individual defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter
ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually
represented in the lawsuit.”) (cleaned up). Adding Chandra thus had the effect of treating Chandra
as if he had been a party from the outset of the litigation. See Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Factory Mut. Ins.
Co., No. B155996, 2002 WL 31555423, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2002) (“In other words, the
original judgment is amended to add the new party as if the new party was involved in the litigation
from the beginning.”)
Kobo therefore correctly relied on March 28, 2022 as the accrual date when it calculated the
amount of post-judgment interest. See Opp’n at 3, 5.
B. Interest Rate
Chandra also argues that the writ of execution does not identify the interest rate used to
calculate post-judgment interest. Mot. at 4 (“The filing does not specify its start date, or interest
rate Kobo used.”). Again, this is incorrect. The June 24, 2025 memorandum of costs after judgment,
acknowledgment of credit, and declaration of accrued interest submitted by counsel states, “I declare
interest accruing at the legal rate of 1.55% on the unpaid principal amount of $274,721.43 . . . from
Case 4:20-cv-04482-YGR Document 201 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 4

4
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
the date of entry or renewal and on balances from the date of any partial satisfactions (or other
credits reducing the principal), remaining due in the amount of $13,812.84.” Docket No. 154-1 at
ECF p.5; see 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a); Opp’n at 3–4 (citing United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District of California, Historical Interest Rates3).
The court finds no error in relying on the 1.55% interest rate or in Kobo’s calculation of
post-judgment interest.4 Accordingly, there is no reason to require Kobo to file “a sworn line-item
audit” regarding the writ, as Chandra requests. Mot. at 10–11.
C. “Equitable Compensation and Costs”
Chandra’s request for compensation in the amount of $9,600 for time spent “drafting,
revising, and filing this motion [to correct]” (Mot. at 9) is denied. The court finds no basis to award
fees and costs to Chandra because his motion lacks merit.
D. Request to Stay Enforcement
The undersigned and Judge Gonzalez Rogers have repeatedly denied Chandra’s requests to
stay execution of judgment. [Docket No. 153 at 3; Docket No. 184; Docket No. 185 at 4; Docket
No. 186; Docket No. 195.] So has the Federal Circuit. Pop Top III, Docket No. 47. Chandra
provides no basis to enter a stay now.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Chandra’s motion to amend the writ of execution and his request
to temporarily stay enforcement of the writ are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2025
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
Chief Magistrate Judge
3 Available at https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/historic_rates_new.pdf.
4 The court’s interest calculation confirms Kobo’s amount:
$274,721.43 (judgment) x 1.55% interest rate = $4,258.18
$4,258.18 / 365 days = $11.66 per day
$11.66 x 1,184 days (days between fee award and writ) = $13,812.84
Case 4:20-cv-04482-YGR Document 201 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 4