Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-04482
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Pop Top v. Rakuten Kobo, Judge Ryu denied Chandra’s motion to correct the writ of execution and temporarily stay enforcement.
The ruling leaves in place the $288,534.27 writ of execution against Pop Top Corp. and judgment debtor Rohit Chandra, including the challenged post-judgment interest calculation, and rejects Chandra’s request to pause enforcement.
What happened
In Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., Rakuten Kobo had a judgment for attorneys’ fees against Pop Top, and Rohit Chandra had later been added as a judgment debtor. The clerk issued a $288,534.27 writ of execution, including post-judgment interest.
Chandra argued that interest should begin only when he was added as a judgment debtor and that the writ did not adequately identify the interest calculation. He also sought $9,600 for preparing the motion and asked to temporarily stop enforcement. The court rejected these arguments, concluding that interest properly began when the attorneys’ fee award was fixed on March 28, 2022, and that the 1.55% rate and calculation were correct.
Judge Ryu denied Chandra’s motion to amend the writ, denied his request to temporarily stay enforcement, and denied his request for compensation and costs. The ruling left the writ and its $288,534.27 amount in place.
The detailed version
- Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-04482
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 8, 2025
Background
A writ of execution is a court-authorized process for enforcing a judgment. On June 25, 2021, the court granted summary judgment for Rakuten Kobo Inc. On March 28, 2022, it awarded Kobo $274,721.43 in attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act and ordered Pop Top Corp. to pay. Rohit Chandra was later added as a judgment debtor based on the court’s finding that he was Pop Top’s alter ego and had controlled the earlier litigation.
Kobo requested writs of execution totaling $288,534.27, consisting of the $274,721.43 fee judgment and $13,812.84 in post-judgment interest. The clerk issued the writ on October 8, 2025. Chandra moved to correct the interest calculation, requested a temporary stay of enforcement, and sought $9,600 for time spent preparing the motion.
Court’s Analysis
Accrual date. Chandra argued that interest should have accrued only from August 15, 2025, when he was added as a judgment debtor. The court rejected that argument. Applying federal law and California execution procedures, the court concluded that interest on the fee award ran from March 28, 2022, when the amount of the award was fixed. Adding Chandra as an alter-ego judgment debtor treated him as if he had been involved in the litigation from the beginning for purposes of the judgment.
Interest rate and calculation. The court found no error in Kobo’s use of a 1.55% interest rate or in its calculation of $13,812.84 in post-judgment interest. It therefore found no reason to require Kobo to file the sworn, itemized audit Chandra requested.
Compensation and stay. The court denied Chandra’s request for $9,600 in compensation and costs because his motion lacked merit. It also noted that the court and the Federal Circuit had repeatedly denied requests to stay execution of the judgment, and that Chandra provided no basis for a new stay.
Disposition
Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Chandra’s motion to amend the writ of execution and denied his request to temporarily stay enforcement of the writ. The court also denied his request for compensation and costs.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.