AHMED v. GET TOGETHER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA IN REAL LIFE, et al.

26CV172440: AHMED, vs GET TOGETHER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA IN REAL LIFE, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by ABRAHAM SHAFI (Defendant) CRS# 219505120894 in Department 23

Tentative Ruling - 07/27/2026 Ruben Sundeen

The Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by ABRAHAM SHAFI on 07/02/2026 is Granted.

Defendant Abraham Shafi (“Shafi”) moves to stay this case in its entirety pending trial on related criminal charges involving securities fraud. Defendant Get Together, Inc. dba In Real Life (“IRL”) joins the motion. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff asserts a fraud claim against Shafi, and claims against IRL for fraud, breach of contract, and violation of Labor Code section 2802. Plaintiff’s fraud claim arises from alleged misrepresentations by Shafi regarding IRL’s monthly active users, which directly impacted its value. Plaintiff alleges that he justifiably relied to his detriment on Shafi’s misrepresentations and relocated to accept employment with IRL, and that he suffered other harm as a result. Plaintiff further alleges that Shafi was indicted on multiple felony fraud counts in August 2025, and attaches the indictment issued in United States v. Shafi, CR25-00258-AMO to the First Amended Complaint.

Shafi contends that governing law and the relevant allegations and facts support a stay pending resolution of the criminal case. Plaintiff opposes the stay on the ground that not all factors in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, are implicated, but concedes that there is “substantial overlap” between the two cases and that Shafi’s Fifth Amendment rights are “unquestionably implicated[.]” (Opp. at p. 4.)

Where simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings are pending, the court may stay the civil proceeding until disposition of the related criminal case. (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) California courts generally apply the test set forth in Keating when considering whether to issue a stay. (People ex rel. Burns v. Wood (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 700, 713-14; see also Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)

“The court should consider ‘the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated.’” (Burns, 103 Cal.App.5th at 713, citing Keating at 324.) “In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.” (Id., citing Keating at p. 325.) 26CV172440: AHMED, vs GET TOGETHER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA IN REAL LIFE, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by ABRAHAM SHAFI (Defendant) CRS# 219505120894 in Department 23 “Other than where there is specific evidence of agency bad faith or malicious governmental tactics, the strongest case for deferring civil proceedings until after completion of criminal proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter.

The noncriminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine the party's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, expand rights of criminal discovery beyond the limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), expose the basis of the defense to the prosecution in advance of criminal trial, or otherwise prejudice the case. If delay of the noncriminal proceeding would not seriously injure the public interest, a court may be justified in deferring it.” (Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., Inc. (D.C.

Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 1368, 1375–76.)

Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. As noted above, Plaintiff concedes that Shafi’s Fifth Amendment rights are “unquestionably” implicated in the criminal proceeding. This factor weighs in favor of a stay.

Plaintiff’s interest in proceeding v. prejudice caused by delay. Plaintiff seeks money damages in this case. Notably, Plaintiff’s alleged injury became known in approximately 2023, but Plaintiff waited until 2026 to commence this action. Plaintiff contends that a stay will impact his ability to obtain meaningful monetary relief because IRL is winding down its asserts and increases the risk that Plaintiff will be left with an uncollectible judgment. Every stay delays a Plaintiff’s potential remedy. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s own delay in filing suggests a lack of urgency and minimal prejudice. This factor weighs in favor of a stay.

Burden to Defendant of proceeding. Plaintiff concedes that there is significant factual overlap between this case and the criminal proceeding as both proceedings largely involve the same nucleus of operative facts. Shafi may therefore deem it necessary to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in response to discovery; and conversely, any disclosures made may provide the prosecution with “information to which it was not entitled under the criminal discovery rules.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.) This factor weighs in favor of a stay.

Judicial efficiency. This case is less than a year old, and the Court agrees that a stay in this case while the criminal case proceeds will likely streamline the ultimate issues in this case. Moreover, IRL has joined this motion and also requests a stay, meaning that the case would not proceed as to one defendant and risk duplicative litigation. This factor weighs in favor of a stay.

Interests of nonparties. The Court agrees that Shafi’s argument regarding potential third parties is unpersuasive. This factor is neutral.

Public interest. Both parties agree that the public has a strong interest in preserving the integrity of the criminal process and protecting a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. The Court finds no over public benefit to the public in permitting the civil case to proceed that is clear and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV172440: AHMED, vs GET TOGETHER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA IN REAL LIFE, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by ABRAHAM SHAFI (Defendant) CRS# 219505120894 in Department 23 overrides the risks, concerns, and interest noted. This factor weighs in favor of a stay or, at minimum, is neutral.

The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s request for a partial stay to permit some amount of discovery or development of the case, but having considered the relevant factors under Keating, the Court finds it appropriate to stay this case in its entirety pending the outcome of the related criminal case, United States v. Shafi, CR25-00258-AMO.

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that a stay is warranted. Therefore, this case is hereby STAYED in its entirety.

The Court sets this matter for a status conference on 8/3/2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 23. No later than 7/20/2027, Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report updating the Court on the status of the criminal case.

FURTHER CONFERENCE A Case Management Conference is scheduled for 08/03/2027 at 02:30 PM in Department 23.

*If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*

How to Contest a Tentative Ruling

Through the eCourt Public Portal

To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps:

1. Log in to the eCourt Public Portal.

2. Select Case Search.

3. Enter the case number and select Search.

4. Select the case name.

5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV172440: AHMED, vs GET TOGETHER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA IN REAL LIFE, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by ABRAHAM SHAFI (Defendant) CRS# 219505120894 in Department 23

6. Click “Contest This Ruling.”

7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.

8. Select Proceed.

You must also send notice to the department, Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov, which copies all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing. Remote Appearance Information

For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit:

https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402

Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties. Parties must appear IN PERSON for Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.