1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 POP TOP CORP, Case No. 20-cv-04482-YGR (DMR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. CORRECT WRIT OF EXECUTION

10 RAKUTEN KOBO INC., Re: Dkt. No. 193 11 Defendant.

12 On October 8, 2025, the clerk of court issued a writ of execution in the amount of 13 $288,534.27 as to Defendant Pop Top Corp. and Judgment Debtor Rohit Chandra. [Docket 14 No. 187.] Chandra now moves to correct the post-judgment interest calculation and for a temporary 15 stay of the enforcement of the writ. [Docket No. 192 (Mot.).] Judgment Creditor Rakuten Kobo, 16 Inc. (“Kobo”) filed an opposition (Docket No. 198 (Opp’n)), and Chandra filed a reply (Docket 17 No. 199 (Reply)). 18 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition 19 without oral argument. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the relevant legal authority, and 20 the record in this case, the court denies Chandra’s motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 The court’s prior orders contain a detailed history of this litigation. [Docket Nos. 121, 134, 23 153, 185.] As is relevant here, on June 25, 2021, the court granted summary judgment in favor of 24 Kobo, and entered judgment accordingly. [Docket Nos. 50, 54.] On March 28, 2022, the court 25 found that Kobo was entitled to $274,721.43 in attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act and ordered 26 Pop Top to pay Kobo within 30 days. [Docket No. 77.] Chandra was subsequently added as a 27 judgment debtor. [Docket No. 134; see Docket No. 121.] 1 attorneys’ fees to the Federal Circuit and filed numerous motions seeking to delay execution of the 2 judgment.1 [Docket Nos. 67, 78, 146, 158, 161, 169.] On June 30, 2025, Kobo requested that the 3 clerk of court issue writs of execution against Pop Top and Chandra in the amount of $288,534.27, 4 which represented a $274,721.43 judgment, plus $13,812.84 in post-judgment interest. [Docket 5 Nos. 154, 154-1, 166-1.] Over Chandra’s objections (Docket No. 164), the undersigned granted in 6 part Kobo’s request for issuance of writs of execution2 (Docket No. 185). On October 8, 2025, the 7 clerk of court issued the writ of execution in the amount of $288,534.27. [Docket No. 187.] 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 A. Date of Accrual 10 Chandra argues that interest only accrued on August 15, 2025, when he was added as a 11 judgment debtor, because he was not a party prior to that point. Mot. at 6. Chandra’s position is 12 incorrect. 13 Post-judgment “interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a 14 rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board 15 of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding.” 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1961(a). “Courts have interpreted this to mean that post-judgment interest is calculated from the 17 date of the judgment establishing the right to the award.” Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. 02 Micro 18 Int’l Ltd., No. C 08-4567 CW,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012), aff’d sub 19 nom. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.,

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (cleaned 20 up). 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) further provides “[t]he procedure on execution--and 22 in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the 23

24 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 25 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 26 (Fed. Cir.), Docket Nos. 44, 53. 27 2 The court denied Kobo’s request insofar as the writs were directed to property in Stanislaus and 1 procedure of the state where the court is located.” See Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M- 2 MLS.com,

, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) (“This circuit has approved the use of the state 3 procedure in federal court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a).”). In California, 4 “postjudgment interest on such awards runs from the date the amount of the fee award is fixed, not 5 from the date of the original judgment.” Lucky United Props. Inv., Inc. v. Lee,

(2013), as modified on denial of reh’g (Feb. 26, 2013). 7 The fee award was fixed when the court awarded Kobo attorneys’ fees on March 28, 2022; 8 the date of the award did not change by when Judge Gonzalez Rogers added Chandra as a judgment 9 debtor on grounds that Chandra is the alter ego of Pop Top and had control over the litigation such 10 that his interests were virtually represented. Docket No. 134; see McClellan v. Northridge Park 11 Townhome Owners Ass’n, Inc.,

(2001) (“[J]udgments are typically 12 “amended to add additional judgment debtors on the grounds that a person or entity is the alter ego 13 of the original judgment debtor. . . . Such a procedure is an appropriate and complete method by 14 which to bind new individual defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter 15 ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually 16 represented in the lawsuit.”) (cleaned up). Adding Chandra thus had the effect of treating Chandra 17 as if he had been a party from the outset of the litigation. See Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Factory Mut. Ins. 18 Co., No. B155996,

, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2002) (“In other words, the 19 original judgment is amended to add the new party as if the new party was involved in the litigation 20 from the beginning.”) 21 Kobo therefore correctly relied on March 28, 2022 as the accrual date when it calculated the 22 amount of post-judgment interest. See Opp’n at 3, 5. 23 B. Interest Rate 24 Chandra also argues that the writ of execution does not identify the interest rate used to 25 calculate post-judgment interest. Mot. at 4 (“The filing does not specify its start date, or interest 26 rate Kobo used.”). Again, this is incorrect. The June 24, 2025 memorandum of costs after judgment, 27 acknowledgment of credit, and declaration of accrued interest submitted by counsel states, “I declare 1 the date of entry or renewal and on balances from the date of any partial satisfactions (or other 2 || credits reducing the principal), remaining due in the amount of $13,812.84.” Docket No. 154-1 at 3 ECF p.5; see

(a); Opp’n at 3—4 (citing United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern 4 District of California, Historical Interest Rates*). 5 The court finds no error in relying on the 1.55% interest rate or in Kobo’s calculation of 6 || post-judgment interest.t Accordingly, there is no reason to require Kobo to file “a sworn line-item 7 audit” regarding the writ, as Chandra requests. Mot. at 10-11. 8 C. “Equitable Compensation and Costs” 9 Chandra’s request for compensation in the amount of $9,600 for time spent “drafting, 10 || revising, and filing this motion [to correct]” (Mot. at 9) is denied. The court finds no basis to award 11 fees and costs to Chandra because his motion lacks merit. 12 D. Request to Stay Enforcement 13 The undersigned and Judge Gonzalez Rogers have repeatedly denied Chandra’s requests to 14 stay execution of judgment. [Docket No. 153 at 3; Docket No. 184; Docket No. 185 at 4; Docket 3 15 No. 186; Docket No. 195.] So has the Federal Circuit. Pop Top IIT, Docket No. 47. Chandra a 16 || provides no basis to enter a stay now. 17 || I. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, Chandra’s motion to amend the writ of execution and his request 19 to temporarily stay enforcement of the writ are denied. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 8, 2025

onna M. Ryu 24 Chief Magistrate Judge 25 26 || ° Available at https://www.casb.uscourts.gow/sites/casb/files/historic_rates_new.pdf. 07 * The court’s interest calculation confirms Kobo’s amount: $274,721.43 (Gudgment) x 1.55% interest rate = $4,258.18 28 $4,258.18 / 365 days = $11.66 per day $11.66 x 1,184 days (days between fee award and writ) = $13,812.84