Replenium vs. Albertsons
Replenium vs. Albertsons
Replenium vs. Albertsons
8 REPLENIUM INC.,
CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1281
9 Plaintiff,
10 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
v.
JURY TRIAL
11
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.,
12
Defendant.
13
14
16 attorneys, makes the following factual allegations applicable to each cause of action pled herein
18 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
20 secrets, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
21 promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, based on Albertsons’ systematic theft of Replenium’s
22 trade secret and confidential information for the purpose of building a system to replace and
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 1 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 42
1 “Replenium Platform”) provides grocery retailers with the unique ability to offer customers full
2 grocery basket, auto-replenishment services that drive customer purchases and promote long-term
4 3. In October 2020, Replenium entered a SaaS contract with Albertsons, the second
5 largest supermarket chain in North America, to launch the Replenium Platform, a first-of-its-kind,
7 their grocery purchases across a full basket of grocery items. Under the agreement and
9 agreed to pay Replenium service fees based upon the net revenue generated through Albertsons’
10 customers’ replenishment orders. The parties entered a mutual non-disclosure agreement (the
11 “MNDA”) to protect confidential information shared in connection with the Replenium Platform.
12 4. The MSA anticipated Albertsons launching the Replenium Platform for Albertsons’
13 customers in December 2020. From the inception of the MSA, Albertsons represented to
14 Replenium that it intended to expand the Replenium Platform nationwide, across its twenty-two
15 banners, including Safeway, and over 2,200 stores across approximately 34 states and the District
16 of Columbia.
18 revolutionizing” and proclaimed that “no other grocer is doing it yet.” Albertsons further stated
19 that “the customer benefits, the financial benefits, and the ability to be first to market make this a
20 top priority for the company.” It described the Replenium Platform’s value in terms of growing its
21 customers’ purchases: “When customers can subscribe to their usuals, they inherently become
22 more loyal, driving approximately one additional trip per quarter and a 15 percent spend increase.”
24 Replenium Platform, Albertsons delayed its launch and expansion for nearly three years. During
25 that time, Albertsons made false promises and unscrupulously leveraged its market power to
26 induce Replenium to (i) continue to invest in implementing the Replenium Platform, while
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 2 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 3 of 42
1 withstanding millions of dollars of losses directly attributable to its support for Albertsons, and (ii)
2 share trade secret and confidential information, under the parties’ MNDA and MSA, relating to the
6 sharing based on its internal and external statements that it planned a launch and nationwide
7 expansion of the Replenium Platform. For example, in December 2021, Albertsons issued a press
8 release about its planned nationwide rollout of the Replenium Platform, stating that Schedule &
9 Save was “developed in partnership with auto-replenishment and predictive shopping platform
10 Replenium” and was part of “Albertsons Cos.’ ongoing goal to revolutionize its digital offerings
11 and enhance all aspects of the food experience to save customers time and money.” It continued,
12 “[i]n 2022, Albertsons Cos. plans to expand the program nationwide and include a continuous
14 8. In a March 2022 call with Replenium and the Albertsons team, Albertsons’ Senior
15 Vice President of Digital Shopping Experiences, Jill Pavlovich, projected that the Replenium
16 Platform represented a “massive opportunity,” and further quantified that opportunity as a “$[4]
17 billion-dollar opportunity by fiscal year 2024.”1 Ms. Pavlovich challenged the Albertsons team to
18 prioritize subscriber acquisition for the Replenium Platform, stating: “Vivek [Sankaran, Chief
19 Executive Officer] himself has challenged all of us, this group here, to get to 100,000 subscribers
20 by the end of the year, a goal I know we can blow out of the water.”
22 MNDA and MSA, Replenium shared trade secret and confidential information for over three
23 years, with hundreds of Albertsons’ personnel, including its technical leads, solutions architects,
24
25 1
Ms. Pavlovich’s statement referred to a “$40 billion-dollar opportunity”, but based on her stated calculation
methodology, it appears that she intended to reference a still-significant, “$4 billion-dollar opportunity.” This
26 complaint accordingly refers to the corrected $4 billion dollar calculation.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 3 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 4 of 42
1 and senior managers. During these meetings, Albertsons requested and received specific, detailed
2 information about recommended process flows and business logic for key features of the
3 Replenium Platform.
5 Replenium to engage in a series of limited assortment pilots and small segment launches based on
8 secret and confidential information by building its own competing, full grocery basket auto-
10 11. Albertsons initially launched Schedule & Save with Replenium, with limited
11 functionality, in Northern California in August 2022. For the next year, Albertsons requested and
12 received trade secret and confidential information from Replenium for the purpose of adding
14 12. Even as Albertsons was building or planning to build its own replacement solution,
15 it continued to induce Replenium to share more trade secret and confidential information and
16 invest even further in support of Albertsons’ incremental expansion of Schedule & Save. For
17 example, in January 2023, in the face of Albertsons’ continued delays, Pavlovich continued to
18 induce Replenium to share trade secret and confidential information and invest in enhancements
21 merger with The Kroger Company (“Kroger”), stating that Replenium stood to generate fees
22 beyond Albertsons’ replenishment volume because Replenium would “get Kroger out of this” too.
24 enhancement to Schedule & Save based on Albertsons’ promised nationwide expansion of the
25 Replenium Platform in the fall of 2023. Through the Replenium Platform, and based on
26 Replenium’s ongoing confidential information sharing, Albertsons added Replenium’s Cart &
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 4 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 5 of 42
1 Checkout functionality to Schedule & Save in 240 stores in Northern California. At the same
2 time, Albertsons disguised its true plans to launch its own platform by providing Replenium with
3 misleading information.
4 14. The August 2023 launch was a success; however, Albertsons’ nationwide
5 expansion of Schedule & Save on the Replenium Platform never happened. On October 3, 2023,
6 after three years of learning the technology, know-how, and logic behind the Replenium Platform,
7 Albertsons abruptly terminated the MSA, astonishingly citing the Kroger merger as one of the
8 reasons for terminating the MSA. Albertsons almost immediately launched its own, nearly
9 identical, full-basket auto-replenishment solution that it had built with unfettered access to and use
11 15. As a result, Replenium, after investing over ten million dollars over three years of
12 implementation and operation of its Replenium Platform with Albertsons, lost nearly the entirety
13 of that investment on the eve of the planned, full-scale expansion, without realizing any of its
14 service fee revenue under the MSA. Albertsons’ calculated maneuver cost Replenium millions of
15 dollars that it invested in implementation and operation, tens of millions of dollars in anticipated
16 revenue under the MSA, and a massive loss in Replenium’s enterprise value due to its investment
17 in a flagship customer that acted in bad faith by repeatedly squeezing and ultimately discarding
19 16. Albertsons rolled out its competing platform in October 2023 and rapidly expanded
20 Schedule & Save across the country to the vast majority of its large banners, such as Safeway,
21 Vons, Albertsons, and Jewel-Osco, without paying for Replenium’s technology and know-how
23 17. Replenium seeks to hold Albertsons accountable for acting in bad faith, breaching
24 its agreements, making false promises, and misappropriating its trade secrets and confidential
25 information, without paying Replenium a license for its ongoing use and profits from the
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 5 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 6 of 42
3 PARTIES
4 18. Replenium Inc. is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in
5 Seattle, Washington.
6 19. Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
9 20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 and
10 18 U.S.C. § 1836(c).
11 21. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
12 substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this Judicial
13 District.
14 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17 22. Tom Furphy founded Replenium in 2015 to develop and launch a first-to-market
18 auto-replenishment service for grocery retailers that would provide grocery customers and brands
19 with an automated and efficient tool for replenishing their routine grocery purchases. Furphy
20 previously served as Vice President of consumables and AmazonFresh at Amazon from 2005 to
21 2009, where he was responsible for the underlying strategy, development and execution of
22 Amazon’s grocery and health and beauty business. Replenium’s Chief Technology Officer, Umair
23 Bashir, is also a former Amazon executive who served as a Manager of Software Development for
24 Retail Customer Experience, where he helped build Subscribe & Save, and later as a Senior
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 6 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 7 of 42
1 23. Replenium was the first company to successfully create a full-basket auto-
2 replenishment system for grocery retailers that automatically schedules customers’ product
3 replenishments orders and organizes deliveries and pick-ups based on replenishment schedules
4 and customer preferences. This goes far beyond traditional product subscription platforms to
5 accommodate the high frequency, large product assortment, large shopping basket size and
6 complexity of grocery shopping. To date, no other grocery retailer, outside of Albertsons, has
8 24. Replenium’s technology and business logic enable customers to automate large
9 portions of their everyday purchases by making it simple for them to identify and add items to
10 their auto-replenishment list, then automatically create orders, tender payment, and schedule
11 orders for delivery or pick-up when products are due to be replenished. This is all done with little
12 to no human intervention. The confidential and proprietary technology and business logic that
14 level of automation has never been available on large baskets of goods, like those in a regular trip
15 to the grocery store. Unlocking this functionality helps ensure that customers do not run out of the
17 25. Replenium created its Trade Secrets through years of research, development, and
18 testing across many customer use cases such as handling large orders, making order changes,
19 handling multiple temperature zones, accommodating products with shelf life and replenishment
20 cycle variation, and changes in delivery timing or method. Replenium’s solution addresses a retail
21 market that is several times larger than that captured by traditional product subscription software,
23 26. Replenium offers retailers the Replenium Platform through SaaS contracts that
24 provide retailers with access to the Replenium Platform and ongoing operational and technology
25 support, all under strict contractual protections for Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 7 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 8 of 42
1 confidential information. Replenium does not operate as a software development firm and does
3 27. Retailers benefit from implementing the Replenium Platform by enabling them to
4 drive larger and more frequent digital shopping cart orders and better forecast labor and inventory
5 needs. Brands benefit from predictable revenue streams from replenishment orders, valuable data
6 related to purchasing patterns, and an increase in shoppers’ brand loyalty. And, finally, customers
7 receive personalized automated digital shopping carts based on their preferences and historical
8 shopping preferences while simultaneously saving time with automated fulfillment that fits
10 28. Many other retailers have attempted to create a system like the breakthrough
11 Replenium Platform, but outside of Albertsons none have succeeded. Companies like Amazon
12 and Chewy created product subscription systems that operate on a single item and small order
13 level only. The Replenium Platform stands apart because it can automatically generate entire
14 shopping carts—not just single items preselected by customers—as well as delivery schedules
15 based on customer preferences without any input required by the customer after the initial order.
16 29. Other grocery retailers, such as Walmart, have publicly announced their intentions
17 to launch a full-basket auto-replenishment solution but have yet to successfully do so. And
18 Amazon, which only recently launched its Amazon Fresh replenishment solution in February
19 2024, does not offer customers the ability to truly configure auto-replenishment for their grocery
20 needs, still requiring the customer to make decisions and manually, not automatically, execute
21 orders.
24 30. Recognizing the immense value that could be derived from implementing the
25 Replenium Platform, Albertsons sought to contract with Replenium to gain access to the
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 8 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 9 of 42
1 Replenium Platform and secure Replenium’s services and expertise to offer a full-basket auto-
3 31. On June 17, 2020, Replenium and Albertsons entered into the MNDA to enable
4 Replenium and Albertsons to “share information for the purpose of evaluating the suitability of
6 “treat such information as confidential.” The terms of the MNDA applied to the parties’ “parent,
7 affiliates and subsidiaries, and its and their officers, directors, employees, contractors, consultants,
10 any and all information of the Disclosing Party and each of its
parent, affiliates and subsidiaries that is not available to the public,
11 including, but not limited to: trade secrets; techniques; methods;
12 methodologies; product and manufacturing specifications; purchase
or sales volume, manufacturing, marketing, development, customer
13 (personal and aggregate data, including household and alternative
IDs and tracking cookies and tags), employee, supplier, financial or
14 operations information; technical, scientific, laboratory,
experimental, research or statistical data; tooling; machinery;
15
diagrams; drawings; forecasting; business and new product and
16 service plans; reports; procedures; designs; formulae; recipes;
improvements; records; processes; any and all current and future
17 product information; facilities tours; know-how; data or any third
party information and contracts that Disclosing Party is obligated to
18 treat as confidential that is disclosed or made accessible to the
19 Receiving Party directly or indirectly, in any form, whether written,
oral, photographic, electronic, magnetic, computer, by inspection of
20 tangible objects, or otherwise (including materials, records, reports,
documents, prototypes, samples, plant and equipment) and
21 information that has been subject to confidential treatment under a
terminated or expired agreement between the parties.
22
23 Id. § 2.
24
25
2
26 This was defined as the MNDA’s “Purpose.”
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 9 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 10 of 42
1 33. The MNDA included thorough non-use and non-disclosure protections that
2 prohibited the parties from, among other things, using the Confidential Information3 for any
3 purpose outside of the defined Purpose and from disclosing the Confidential Information to any of
4 its representatives except those “who need to know the Confidential Information for the Purpose
5 and who are bound to keep such Confidential Information confidential . . . .” Id. § 4. Moreover,
6 the MNDA restricted either party from “export[ing], reverse engineer[ing], disassembl[ing], or
7 decompil[ing]” any prototypes, software or other tangible objects that embody the other party’s
9 34. The parties also agreed to “take commercially reasonable measures to protect the
10 secrecy of, and to prevent unauthorized disclosure and/or use of, the Confidential Information of
11 the Disclosing Party.” Those measures were required to be “at least those measures that [the
12 Receiving Party] takes to protect its own confidential information of similar import.” Id. § 6.
13 35. The MNDA enabled an open dialogue between Replenium and Albertsons
14 regarding their potential business relationship, for the duration of that business relationship, and
15 after the termination of that business relationship.4 Replenium relied on the MNDA to share its
16 valuable and novel Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information with Albertsons because of
18 36. On or about October 7, 2020, Replenium and Albertsons entered into the MSA.
19 The parties used Albertsons’ template contract to draft the MSA, at Albertsons’ insistence.
20 37. The MSA, Section 9.1, affirmed that all confidential and proprietary information
21 disclosed by one party to the MSA to the other party “concerning or pertaining to the business of
22 the disclosing party shall be subject to the terms of the [MNDA].” Further, Section 11.3(c) of the
23
3
“Confidential Information” as used herein refers to the term as defined in the MNDA.
24
4
The MNDA’s term continued until terminated by the parties in writing. § 11. In addition, the MNDA provided
25 that “each party’s confidentiality obligations shall survive such termination until such time as the Confidential
Information of the other party . . . becomes publicly known and made available through no breach of this [MNDA] . . .
26 .” Id.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 10 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 11 of 42
1 MSA provides that “Albertsons will use its reasonable efforts to protect Company’s Intellectual
2 Property rights in the Services and will report promptly to Company any infringement or
3 misappropriation of such rights of which Albertsons becomes aware.” Section 11.6 of the MSA
4 also provides that “Albertsons will not . . . (b) copy, modify or create any derivative works based
5 on the Services or (c) disassemble, decompile, or reverse engineer the Services or permit any third
6 party to do so.”
7 38. Pursuant to the MSA, Replenium agreed to provide Albertsons with “automated
9 Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information and integrated into Albertsons’
11 39. In exchange, Albertsons would pay Replenium “Fees specified in [the] SOW.” Id. §
12 6.1. “Fees” includes, among other things, “Service Fees” as set forth in Appendix B. SOW §
15 percentage Service Fee based upon Net Revenue generated through Replenishment Orders” in
16 accordance with a tiered payment structure. Under that schedule, Albertsons would pay
17 Replenium a determined percentage of its auto-replenishment net revenue, with differing rates
18 depending on whether the revenue was generated through Albertsons’ own brands or branded
19 products.
20 41. Crucially, Albertsons would only pay Replenium the Service Fees anticipated by
21 the MSA after Albertsons’ launch and expansion of the Replenium Platform.
22 42. The MSA was a service agreement and not a software development contract. It
23 expressly provided that “[n]othwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this Agreement,
24 the parties acknowledge that [Replenium] is providing automated replenishment SaaS Services
25 and that [Replenium] will not be producing any Deliverables except as expressly set forth in an
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 11 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 12 of 42
1 SOW. The SOW contains a table with an entry for deliverables and next to it, it states “N/A.”
2 Similarly, the table in the SOW states “N/A” in lieu of a schedule for deliverables.
3 43. The MSA defined a “Commercial Launch” of the Replenium Platform as “the date
4 mutually agreed to by the parties on which Customers are able to begin placing Replenishment
5 Orders in one or more geographic or segmented markets” but expressly excludes any “friendly
7 44. Pursuant to the MSA, the Commercial Launch was initially set for December 31,
8 2020. Id. at 1. Albertsons agreed to cooperate in good faith with Replenium to carry out all its
9 obligations in the MSA. Id. § 1.3. Albertsons further agreed to “use commercially reasonable
10 efforts to market and promote the ability of Customers to place and manage Replenishment
12 45. The parties agreed to the terms of the MSA, and its payment structure, with the
13 expectation that Albertsons would rapidly launch and expand its use of the Replenium Platform
14 nationwide with a full set of service features. The parties never contemplated Replenium
15 providing SaaS services for years without generating Service Fees from a nationwide expansion of
16 the Replenium Platform. For the duration of the integration of the Replenium Platform,
17 Replenium would be operating at a significant loss, which would only make sense if it received
18 the Service Fees resulting from the launch and nationwide expansion of the Replenium Platform.
19 46. The financial potential for Replenium was massive in light of the number of
20 Albertsons stores and its tens of billions of dollars of revenue, including billions of dollars of
21 ecommerce revenue. Without the Service Fees, Replenium would not have entered into the MSA.
23 significant, as well as the resulting fees, was based not only on Albertsons’ size and Albertsons’
24 projections, but also based on its own market research and past experience at Amazon.
25 48. Albertsons was also aware that Replenium would be operating at a significant loss
26 until Albertsons widely expanded the Replenium Platform to its customers. Replenium
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 12 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 13 of 42
1 periodically shared its financial information with Albertsons, demonstrating the monthly
2 investment it was making to support Albertsons. With this information, Albertsons established the
3 expectation that it would rapidly execute a national expansion of the Replenium Platform from the
4 beginning of the parties’ relationship, and consistently reaffirmed this expectation throughout the
5 parties’ relationship.
6 49. The SOW specifically provided that the “parties acknowledge that upon
7 Commercial Launch it is in their mutual interest to maximize the number of Replenishment Orders
9 III. Replenium Shares Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information with a
Significant Number of Albertsons’ Representatives Under the Protections of
10 the MNDA
11 50. In July 2020, Replenium and Albertsons began collaborating and sharing Trade
12 Secrets and other Confidential Information about the Replenium Platform, under the protections of
13 the MNDA.
14 51. Replenium and the Albertsons team tasked with coordinating and working with
15 Replenium corresponded regularly via email, Microsoft Teams, Slack, and video calls discussing
16 the Replenium Platform and Replenium’s underlying technology that supported the Replenium
17 Platform. These frequent discussions included topics such as the underlying system architecture,
18 integration details and processes, as well as strategic approaches to implementation and business
19 logic.
20 52. By October 2020, the parties were holding weekly Tuesday meetings (sometimes
21 twice weekly meetings) to discuss progress and implementation of the Replenium Platform.
22 Replenium and Albertsons maintained this level and frequency of communication over nearly the
23 entirety of their three years working together on the Replenium Platform. These communications
24 regularly included discussions of Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information.
25 53. On the Replenium side, Chief Technology Officer and engineer Umair Bashir led
26 the discussions, along with a team of Replenium’s top technology and implementation team. For
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 13 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 14 of 42
1 Albertsons, frequent attendees of the calls included Sowjanya Naidu, (Technical Architect and
2 Technical Lead); Krishna Movva (Engineering Manager); Bipin Chaudhari (Technical Program
4 Architect); Ramanjaneya Reddy Karnati (User Interface Developer); Asha Choudhary (Product
5 Manager); Krishna Wudaru (Engineering Manager); Vijay Maddu (Technical Lead); Kevin
6 DeKorte (User Interface Lead); and Ganga Ramankulam (Technical Program Manager), to name a
7 small selection of the over two-hundred Albertsons employees and contractors with whom
9 54. In addition to the regular calls between the two teams, many of which were
10 recorded by Albertsons, Replenium also shared in writing Trade Secrets and other Confidential
11 Information about the logic, technology and business strategies underlying the Replenium
12 Platform. This information was communicated through, among other means, messaging services,
13 such as Slack, email, as well as through PowerPoint presentations created by Replenium and
15 55. For example, on July 9, 2020, Replenium shared with Albertsons a confidential
16 presentation that included a “Technology Overview” of the “Architecture & Integration” of the
18 Microsoft Azure architecture, replenishment user and data flow explaining how customers and the
19 Replenium Platform would respond and react to each other’s inputs, and auto-replenishment
20 recurring order flow. The presentation also provided detailed user experience design, including
21 core customer notification and auto-replenishment item and order management features.
22 Replenium emailed this presentation to Richa Gupta (Senior Director, Head of Loyalty Platform
23 Innovations and Partnerships) and Jonathan Nouri (Senior Vice President of Loyalty) and
25 56. In a July 24, 2020 email, Replenium explained to Richa Gupta of Albertsons the
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 14 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 15 of 42
1 Amazon, Chewy, Ordergroove, and Zuora. Replenium further shared a confidential presentation
4 confidential presentation entitled “Rp Albertson Combined Customer Journey,” which laid out the
5 step-by-step process through which a customer would engage with and navigate through the
6 Replenium Platform, including how customers would subscribe to certain products, how the
7 Replenium Platform would create what it referred to as auto-replenishment buckets and mixed
8 bags, how customers would manage their product replenishments, and how the Replenium
9 Platform would ensure that auto-replenishment orders placed through the Replenium Platform
10 would be fulfilled. Replenium sent this presentation by email to Richa Gupta; Ganga
12 Engineering); Nitin Saksena (Senior Director of Omnichannel Architecture); and Igor Tsigelnik
14 58. On September 15, 2020, Replenium shared with over twenty Albertsons employees
15 a confidential presentation entitled “Albertsons User Stories” which detailed the Replenium
16 Platform’s customer journey, including detailed process flow charts explaining how customers and
17 the Replenium Platform would respond to each other’s inputs to enable effective auto-
18 replenishment and cart management. The presentation also painstakingly detailed the most
19 effective and efficient methods of utilizing the Replenium Platform and how best to design
20 customers’ experience to maximize user uptake and streamline ease of use in light of numerous
21 interrelated systems. Replenium sent this presentation via email to Roopa Acharya (Vice
23 Gupta; Nitin Saksena (Senior Director of Omnichannel Architecture); Igor Tsigelnik (Solutions
24 Architect for eCommerce); Tharun Mittapalli (Contractor); Zachery Baker (Principal User
25 Experience Designer); Victor Teleron; Ganesh Reddiar (Mobile App Solutions Architect); Neetu
26 Sultan (Senior Engineer Manager); Alok Gupta (Director of Enterprise Architecture); Cameron
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 15 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 16 of 42
1 Craig (Vice President of User Experience); Alberto Attia (Principal User Experience Architect);
2 Alicia Sanguinetti (Director of User Experience); Krishna Wudaru (Engineering Manager); Vikas
3 Pathuri ( Director of eCommerce Engineering); Kristin Simao (Innovation Design Strategist) May
4 Ou; Bobby Johnson; Lava Amba; and Trimurthulu Bommireddy (Solutions Architect).
6 Level Overview – September 2020”, which Replenium shared with a large Albertsons team on
7 September 17, 2020, Replenium provided a detailed overview of the product subscription
8 processes enabling customers to subscribe to eligible products in the Replenium Platform. It also
9 provided a detailed overview and process flowchart for the Cart & Checkout feature, which
10 provides a way for customers to easily and quickly add items to auto-replenishment that are in
11 their ecommerce cart while at ecommerce checkout. Cart & Checkout is a proven method to drive
13 encouraged at the outset of the parties’ contractual relationship that Cart & Checkout be developed
15 60. Replenium sent the email attaching this System Architecture presentation to Roopa
18 (Solutions Architect for eCommerce); Tharan Mittapalli; Zachery Baker (Principal User
19 Experience Designer); Victor Teleron; Ganesh Reddiar (Mobile App Solutions Architect); Neetu
20 Sultan (Senior Engineer Manager); and Alok Gupta (Director of Enterprise Architecture).
23 (“SDK”), both unique to the Replenium Platform based on Replenium’s technology and not
24 otherwise made publicly available by Replenium. Replenium shared these documents with
25 multiple Albertsons employees, including Subha Burela (Business Analyst); Vijay Maddu
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 16 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 17 of 42
1 (Technical Lead); Sowjanya Naidu (Technical Architect and Technical Lead); Kevin DeKorte
3 62. Replenium also shared with Albertsons a document detailing its API endpoints,
4 providing explanations and examples to Albertsons how to effectively utilize the Replenium
5 Platform’s API. Over the course of the parties’ relationship, Replenium repeatedly updated these
6 documents and provided up-to-date information concerning its API and SDK to Albertsons.
7 63. In addition, Albertsons required all of the API traffic to go directly through
8 Albertsons’ servers. With the service calls being exchanged through its own gateway rather than
9 Replenium’s, Albertsons was able to gain more information and insight into the nature of the calls
11 64. Replenium shared and gave Albertsons access to these Trade Secrets and other
12 Confidential Information under the protections of the MNDA and MSA and continued to regularly
13 share this type of information throughout the three years of the parties’ relationship.
14 65. The documents identified herein represent merely a sample of the materials shared
15 by Replenium with Albertsons throughout their three-year contract period. Replenium would not
16 and has not shared this type of information with any outside party absent a non-disclosure
17 agreement, such as the MNDA. In fact, Replenium has never shared this depth of information
19 66. Albertsons consistently sought information about the Replenium Platform, under
20 the MNDA and MSA, far beyond what was necessary for Albertsons to integrate the Replenium
21 Platform into Schedule & Save. Albertsons sought information that went to the core of the
22 operation of the Replenium Platform—highly confidential and vigorously protected Trade Secrets
23 and other Confidential Information. Based on the protections in the MNDA and MSA and given
24 Replenium’s desire to ensure the success of the Replenium Platform, Replenium shared the
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 17 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 18 of 42
1
IV. The Rollout of the Replenium Platform is Repeatedly Delayed while
2 Albertsons Continues to Acquire Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other
Confidential Information under the Guise of Moving Forward with a
3 Nationwide Expansion
4 67. After entering the MSA, Albertsons did not meet the December 31, 2020
5 Commercial Launch date and requested an extension of the Commercial Launch date to March 31,
6 2021. Despite the significant costs of Albertsons’ delay, Replenium agreed as a result of
8 provide service.
9 68. On or about January 26, 2021, Replenium and Albertsons executed Amendment
10 Number One to Statement of Work (“SOW Amendment 1”), wherein the parties agreed to adjust
12 69. Replenium continued to diligently work with Albertsons so that it could achieve the
13 March 15, 2021 Commercial Launch date; however, Albertsons also failed to meet the March 15,
15 70. After the second failed Commercial Launch date, Albertsons induced Replenium to
16 continue to work toward a launch by making false promises that it was proceeding toward a
17 national expansion of the Replenium Platform, and by agreeing to cover a portion of Replenium’s
19 71. Albertsons did not follow through on its promise of a nationwide expansion.
20 Rather, Albertsons required Replenium to conduct limited pilots that were never anticipated by the
21 MSA or the parties’ discussions about launching and expanding the Replenium Platform.
22 72. For example, in or around September 2021, Albertsons conducted a pilot consisting
23 of approximately 120 stores in Northern California and only included a small fraction of products
24 eligible for Schedule & Save—approximately 250 stock keeping units (“SKU”), later increased to
25 1,200 SKUs—through the Replenium Platform. This was well below Replenium’s 50,000 SKU
26 recommendation, but the pilot still demonstrated the functionality and potential of the program.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 18 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 19 of 42
1 73. Consistent with the expectations Albertsons set for Replenium, in a December 2021
2 press release, Albertsons announced a limited trial of Schedule & Save “developed in partnership
3 with auto-replenishment and predictive shopping platform Replenium,” with “plans to expand the
4 program nationwide and include a continuous expanding list of items for members to add for auto-
5 replenishment.” Albertsons proclaimed that Schedule & Save, along with new meal planning
6 technology, would “revolutionize its digital offerings and enhance all aspects of the food
8 74. After the initial pilot, in 2022, Albertsons continued to promise a nationwide
9 expansion of the Replenium Platform and expressed incredible optimism for the industry
10 “revolutionizing” opportunity, with Replenium, to be the first grocery chain to launch a full-basket
12 expressed Albertsons’ goal of “exponentially increas[ing] eligible SKUs” for the Replenium
13 Platform.
15 expand the Replenium Platform broadly across the country. For example, in a February 2022
17 approximately 2,147 stores and have an initial 100,000 customers enrolled via its website and
19 76. Albertsons’ Senior Vice President of Digital Shopping Experiences, Jill Pavlovich,
20 lavishly praised Replenium and the opportunity the Replenium Platform offered Albertsons. She
21 communicated Albertsons’ view that Replenium could drive billions of dollars in sales, and that
22 the Replenium Platform had the full and vocal support of Albertsons’ C-suite members. In a
23 March 14, 2022 video call with Albertsons and Replenium representatives, Pavlovich stated:
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 19 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 20 of 42
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you to all of you for the
1 work you’ve done thus far and will continue to do to drive this
program forward. I mean, I think we’re talking about industry-
2 revolutionizing stuff right here. Yes, there is Schedule & Save or
3 Subscribe & Save out there in the market, but not with a grocer. Not
on the things you buy most often. More often than anything,
4 actually. . . . We do know this to be a massive opportunity for us.
First, assuming our [ecommerce] business hits $10 billion dollars,
5 and [the Replenium Platform] grows to be about 40 percent of that,
we’re staring down the pipe at a $4 billion [sic] dollar opportunity
6 by fiscal year 2024. We also know that 60 percent of our
customers’ baskets, or their quote-unquote usuals, means they buy
7 the same thing week over week, and the ability to subscribe to their
usuals and save money is a huge benefit to our customers, especially
8 to our convenience shoppers. When customers can subscribe to
their usuals, they inherently become more loyal, driving
9
approximately one additional trip per quarter and a 15 percent spend
10 increase.
20 77. In this way, amongst many other direct communications to Replenium, Albertsons
21 induced Replenium’s continued services and sharing of Trade Secrets and other Confidential
22 Information by repeatedly assuring Replenium that it would reap significant Service Fees resulting
23 from a broad, full-feature, nationwide expansion that could yield tens of millions of dollars in
24 revenue for Replenium.
25
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 20 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 21 of 42
2 & Save by mid-2022 and expand it nationally throughout the balance of the year. In a June 30,
3 2022, email, Pavlovich stated “[h]ere’s to [July 22] sticking like glue. We cannot wait to get this
5 79. Given Albertsons’ projections and praise for the Replenium Platform, Replenium
6 continued to push Albertsons to broadly expand the Replenium Platform as the parties had agreed.
7 Nevertheless, in August 2022, Albertsons demanded that Replenium commence another limited
9 Replenium that this limited pilot was to be followed by a national expansion, staggered through
11 80. Again, the Replenium Platform proved to be a success; however, Albertsons still
12 did not follow through with the planned national expansion. Albertsons provided Replenium with
13 a series of moving-target reasons to explain its delays, but every time Replenium worked with
14 Albertsons to help it resolve the purported hurdles to a national expansion, Albertsons responded
16 81. During these delays, Albertsons continued to request and receive Trade Secrets and
17 other Confidential Information from Replenium under the protections of the MNDA and MSA.
18 For example, on October 16, 2022, Replenium shared with Albertsons’ team its recommended
19 customer journey enhancements, to which Albertsons responded by saying that there were “some
20 really nice ideas in your document that we’d like to explore,” and further requesting additional
21 information: “knowing that you have industry expertise and data, if you were to prioritize all the
23 82. Albertsons’ delays also took a significant financial toll on Replenium, who was still
24 supporting Albertsons as a good faith business partner, relying on Albertsons’ representations and
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 21 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 22 of 42
3 interim payments to Replenium to cover a small portion of Replenium’s losses, but it continued to
4 delay the promised nationwide expansion while exercising its leverage to induce Replenium’s
5 continued performance. Even with Albertsons’ interim payments, Replenium was incurring
6 millions of dollars of losses annually to support implementation of the Replenium Platform. And,
7 as Albertsons was aware, those losses would be immensely challenging for Replenium to sustain
9 84. Again, in December 2022, Albertsons shared in writing with Replenium what it
10 referred to as its “Banner Expansion Plan” to expand the Replenium Platform nationwide. The
11 Banner Expansion Plan showed that the Replenium Platform would be live in 97% of the Northern
12 California stores, 100% of the Southern California stores, 100% of the Mid-Atlantic stores, 95%
13 of Seattle stores, and 100% of the Southwest stores by the end of September 2023, among others,
15 85. On January 9, 2023, Replenium met with Pavlovich and Wuson to reiterate its
16 concerns about Albertsons’ continued delays of the program. Pavlovich responded that the delays
17 were caused by Albertsons’ prior business and product teams and that Pavlovich and the new team
18 could not be held accountable for the prior team’s performance. During this meeting, Pavlovich
19 informed Replenium that she had not even read the MSA because it was executed before she
20 joined Albertsons.
21 86. At a January 12, 2023 meeting with Albertsons, Replenium again expressed
23 that Albertsons’ delays were taking a significant toll on Replenium given the fact that Albertsons
24 was not paying Service Fees to Replenium to ameliorate its costs, as planned. In response,
25 Pavlovich pointed to the recently announced merger with Kroger and stated that in addition to
26 Albertsons’ volume, Replenium would “get Kroger out of this” if Replenium continued its work.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 22 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 23 of 42
1 87. At that time, Albertsons was in the process of negotiating a merger with Kroger.
2 As of April 2, 2024, Kroger operated 2,722 grocery retail stores across the country under a variety
3 of banner names, either directly or through its subsidiaries. Albertsons’ invocation of Kroger and
4 referencing that Replenium would “get Kroger out of this” was intended to induce Replenium to
5 continue investing time and effort in the Replenium Platform with Albertsons because the
6 potential merger would significantly increase the reach of the Replenium Platform, thereby
8 88. Albertsons finally committed to an expansion in all Safeway stores by February 15,
9 2023. Replenium spent countless hours and exhaustive resources leading up to this February 2023
10 expansion. The teams from both parties were prepared for the rollout, but then just two days prior
11 to the target date, Albertsons’ corporate team abruptly canceled the expansion again.
13 given that all of its functionality was performing to specification. In response, Albertsons’ Omar
14 Gajial, Executive Vice President, Chief Digital & Health Officer at the time, offered to identify a
15 subset of stores or divisions where Albertsons could expand the Replenium Platform. Albertsons
18 resolution to Albertsons’ seemingly inexplicable delays, but Albertsons repeatedly used its market
19 leverage and promises of a national expansion to insist that Replenium continue its support
21 91. In an email from Albertsons in May 2023, after asking Replenium to increase its
22 monthly investment in order to provide additional server capacity and labor, Albertsons reiterated
23 that position: “Like you, we also remain big believers in this program’s potential. We are just an
24 estimated 1 month away from launching the Cart & Checkout experience for customers, which
25 should be a big unlock for the program. If initial results are favorable, it will enable us to expand
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 23 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 24 of 42
1 this program across the enterprise. We look forward to crossing these milestones over the next few
3 92. Through Albertsons’ limited pilots and staged enhancement launches, it repeatedly
4 squeezed Replenium for Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information and significant
5 investment, while Albertsons reaped the benefits of the Replenium Platform through further
6 education about Replenium’s technology and validation of the business case for Schedule & Save.
7 At the same time, Albertsons denied Replenium Service Fees, or ultimately any compensation for
8 its Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information while forcing it into financial challenges that
10 V. With Continuing Access to and Use of Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other
Confidential Information, Albertsons Internally Develops a Competing System
11 to Replace the Replenium Platform
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 24 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 25 of 42
1 97. Specifically, on February 14, 2023, Jenny Liu of Albertsons sent an email to
2 Replenium stating that Matt [Freeman] and I continue to work with the business team to look at
3 the different options to our partnership with you.” She went on, “[a]s we were talking about
4 shifting our relationship into something more strategic, we would need a basic provision to the
5 MNDA before we move forward with further discussions.” She stated that this “basic provision”
6 would “help ensure that we have the protection required as a public company in the long run as we
8 98. The proposed amended MNDA included language that would have granted
10 information retained in the memories of its representatives who had access to Replenium’s
20 99. Replenium rejected that proposal and made clear that it would not agree to
22 particularly puzzled by this exchange given that Albertsons’ request for the residuals language
23 came approximately two and a half years into the parties’ commercial relationship.
25 Replenium for answers to technical questions and questions about the business logic behind the
26 Replenium Platform. For example, in May 2023, via Slack messages, Albertsons contractors and
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 25 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 26 of 42
1 employees Jeyarani Sonai and Mary Ann Warner sought detailed information from Replenium
2 employees Richard Rector and Hasaan Maajid about how the ordering process would and should
3 work for an existing user who enrolls in Cart & Checkout in the Replenium Platform, as well as
4 for new users. Replenium responded in detail both about how the process works and why it was
6 101. Replenium further shared additional Trade Secrets and other Confidential
7 Information with Albertsons regarding Cart & Checkout through a series of emails in May 2023.
9 questioned Replenium regarding the business logic supporting the order date for existing
10 customers signing up for Cart & Checkout. Replenium’s CTO, Bashir, responded to a team of
11 about six Albertsons employees, with details surrounding Replenium’s suggested business logic to
12 create the most efficient process for customers using Cart & Checkout. All such information was
14 102. In the months leading up to Albertsons’ termination of the MSA, Albertsons and
15 Replenium continued to have bi-weekly meetings where the parties discussed expansion criteria
16 and rollout timing. Albertsons also continued to express its enthusiasm for the Replenium
17 Platform, the partnership and the imminent national expansion, while Replenium continued to
18 invest resources and share Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information to support the
19 forthcoming expansion.
20 103. Even in the month immediately prior to Albertsons terminating the MSA and
21 launching the Albertsons Platform, Albertsons continued to work with Replenium toward a
22 nationwide expansion that Albertsons knew would not happen, while collecting more information
23 through a rollout of additional functionality for the Replenium Platform in the Northern California
24 market.
25 104. In an August 10, 2023 meeting between Albertsons and Replenium, Albertsons
26 presented a deck showing that it would launch Cart & Checkout with the Replenium Platform in
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 26 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 27 of 42
1 10 stores on August 10, 2023. Albertsons wrote that if it was successful, the experience would be
2 expanded to the rest of the Northern California stores. The same presentation showed that Cart &
3 Checkout would be launched in 240 stores on August 30, 2023, and Albertsons confirmed, “[i]f all
4 success criteria is met, we will start gradually expanding the program nationwide.”
5 105. In late August 2023, Albertsons launched the Cart & Checkout functionality with
6 the Replenium Platform in Northern California. This launch was confined to Safeway stores only
7 in Northern California and no other Albertsons-owned banners. Through this launch, the
8 Replenium Platform was made available with enhanced functionality in approximately 240 stores.
9 Albertsons launched Cart & Checkout on a small-scale by design, prior to terminating its MSA
10 with Replenium, to ensure that it had sufficient information to utilize that feature in the Albertsons
12 106. As with prior limited launches, the Replenium Platform with Cart & Checkout
13 proved successful, demonstrating the customer need and use for an auto-replenishment full-basket
14 solution, and the commercial value of the Replenium Platform. In fact, on September 6, 2023,
15 Albertsons presented the metrics to Replenium for the original 10 test stores and showed that post
16 the launch of the Replenium Platform with Cart & Checkout, Albertsons saw a 130% increase in
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 27 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 28 of 42
1 anticipation of the upcoming November and December expansion dates for the Replenium
2 Platform. Code freeze dates represent a point in time in the development process after which the
3 rules for making changes to the source code or related resources become more strict, which is
5 109. During the same October 2, 2023 call between Albertsons and Replenium, which
6 occurred the day prior to termination, Albertsons discussed the Banner Expansion Plan, which it
7 said was planned to commence on November 7, 2023. In that call, Albertsons informed
8 Replenium that the Replenium Platform’s expansion would occur so long as a “wallet project”
9 was complete; however, Albertsons never explained the nature of the “wallet project” to
11 110. On an October 3, 2023 call, where Pavlovich and Wuson verbally notified
12 Replenium of Albertsons’ intent to terminate the MSA, Pavlovich cited “difficult times, budget
13 constraints and an impending merger.” Thus, despite the announced Kroger merger being dangled
14 in front of Replenium as a reason to continue its investment, it was later expressly cited to
16 111. When Replenium asked what would happen to Schedule & Save, Pavlovich
17 stunningly declared that Albertsons was prepared to continue to operate Schedule & Save with
18 “internal functionality.”
19 112. Shortly after the termination, while working with Albertsons’ transition team,
20 Replenium learned that while Albertsons was receiving assistance from Replenium in preparation
21 for the expansion of the Replenium Platform and regularly receiving Replenium’s Trade Secrets
22 and other Confidential Information from its chief technology employees, Albertsons was
24 confidentiality protections in the MNDA and MSA, and Albertsons’ published Code of Ethics,
25 Albertsons took no apparent steps to protect Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 28 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 29 of 42
1 113. Indeed, Albertsons’ Code of Business Conduct & Ethics emphasizes that
2 “[p]rotecting information owned, licensed, or entrusted to the Company is not only vital to our
3 success, but our trustworthiness.” (emphasis added). It goes on to provide that employees who
4 have access to confidential information “[m]ust guard against the disclosure of that information,
6 114. While Albertsons’ formal policies highlight integrity and trust, the Albertsons team
7 working with Replenium apparently acted in stark contrast to these principles. In fact, during a
8 meeting on October 4, 2023 to discuss the transition, an Albertsons employee informed Replenium
9 that Albertsons instructed its employees not to discuss with or mention to Replenium that
11 115. On October 16, 2023, Replenium met with Gajial, an EVP for Albertsons, to
12 attempt to salvage the MSA. Replenium emphasized the success of the Replenium Platform up to
13 that point and reminded Gajial that the MNDA and MSA continued to protect Replenium’s
14 Confidential Information from any type of use in connection with Albertsons’ internal
15 development of a competing platform. Gaijal noted that Albertsons decided to build its own
16 platform due to two specific challenges –the user signup experience and earlier development
17 issues. Both of these issues, however, were entirely attributable to Albertsons, making clear that
19 116. On October 18, 2023, Albertsons launched the Albertsons Platform with a design
20 and functionality that is strikingly similar to the Replenium Platform. Albertsons continued to
22 117. Over the course of the parties’ relationship, Replenium worked in various
23 capacities with no less than two hundred Albertsons employees and independent contractors. The
24 parties’ business teams had meetings at least every two weeks from Q1 2021 to Q4 2023. The
25 technology teams of Replenium and Albertsons met at least weekly, and often twice per week.
26 Replenium would have never disclosed information to Albertsons’ large team over this lengthy
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 29 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 30 of 42
1 period without the protections provided by the MNDA and MSA, or, indeed, had it known that
4 118. Replenium invested millions of dollars annually to support the integration and
5 eventual launch of the Replenium Platform, causing close to ten million dollars of direct net losses
6 from its investment in supporting Albertsons, even after factoring in payments Replenium
8 119. Replenium undertook this significant financial burden based on the parties’
9 expectation that when the Replenium Platform was timely launched and expanded nationally,
10 Replenium would receive Service Fees that would compensate it for its work. Over three years,
11 Albertsons repeatedly encouraged Replenium to continue its work on the Replenium Platform—
12 despite Albertsons’ missed deadlines, countless delays, and millions in expenses incurred by
13 Replenium—precisely because Replenium would earn back the amount of its expenses and more
15 120. Albertsons made these statements knowing that they were untrue. Albertsons’
16 development of the Albertsons Platform laid bare the true goal of Albertsons’ insistence that
17 Replenium continue to endure significant development costs. Albertsons wanted continued access
18 to Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information underlying the Replenium
19 Platform so that it could reap the benefit of the MSA, and the information shared under the
20 MNDA and MSA, without having to pay Replenium Service Fees or any compensation for its
22 121. Albertsons has now expanded Schedule & Save under the Albertsons Platform,
23 developed using technology and know-how that it received from Replenium under the MNDA and
24 MSA, across the vast majority of its stores, including some of its largest banners, such as Safeway,
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 30 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 31 of 42
1 122. Albertsons misled and unfairly exercised its leverage over Replenium, including
2 through its false and misleading statements about its planned national expansion, to obtain
3 Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential Information while it built its own competing
4 internal solution. Albertsons knowingly placed Replenium in business distress, without any
6 COUNT I
11 Platform.
17 measures to keep secret and which derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
18 not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by,
19 another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the Trade Secrets.
20 126. Replenium has expended considerable time, effort, and expense in compiling and
22 127. Replenium has undertaken reasonable methods to maintain the secrecy of its Trade
23 Secrets, including entering into non-disclosure agreements with any party with whom it shared the
24 information.
25 128. Replenium entered into an MNDA with Albertsons, which required Albertsons to
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 31 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 32 of 42
1 129. Replenium also entered into the MSA with Albertsons, which reaffirmed
3 130. Replenium shared its Trade Secrets with Albertsons pursuant to the protections of
5 131. Albertsons’ disclosure or use of Replenium’s Trade Secrets has been without the
6 express or implied consent of Replenium where, at the time of the disclosure or use, Albertsons
7 knew or had reason to know—in light of the MNDA and MSA —that its knowledge of
8 Replenium’s Trade Secrets was acquired under circumstances giving rise to Albertsons’ duty to
10 132. Albertsons has exploited Replenium’s Trade Secrets to the benefit of Albertsons
11 and the detriment of Replenium in order to develop a full-basket auto-replenishment system and
14 that such action was a breach of its obligations under the MNDA and MSA and its duty to limit its
15 use of the Trade Secrets. Despite this, Albertsons continued to utilize Replenium’s Trade Secrets
20 Trade Secrets, Replenium has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant damages.
21 136. There is no justification for Albertsons’ wrongful conduct, which is improper and
22 taken for commercial benefit. Albertsons’ conduct has proximately and directly caused and will
23 continue to cause irreparable harm to Replenium. Replenium has incurred additional harm in
24 devoting time and resources to undo damage done by Albertsons and to prevent further harm.
25 137. Replenium has been damaged as a result of Albertsons’ conduct and is entitled to
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 32 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 33 of 42
1 reasonable royalty, any unjust enrichment not encompassed in the computation of Replenium’s
3 COUNT II
8 Platform.
10 compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that derives independent economic
11 value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable
12 by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from their disclosure or use,
13 and are the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain their secrecy.
14 141. Replenium has expended considerable time, effort, and expense in compiling and
16 142. Replenium has undertaken reasonable methods to maintain the secrecy of its Trade
17 Secrets, including entering into non-disclosure agreements with any party with whom it shared the
18 information.
19 143. Replenium entered into an MNDA with Albertsons, which required Albertsons to
21 144. Replenium also entered into the MSA with Albertsons, which reaffirmed
23 145. Replenium shared its Trade Secrets with Albertsons pursuant to the protections of
25
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 33 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 34 of 42
1 146. Albertsons has exploited Replenium’s Trade Secrets to the benefit of Albertsons
3 referred to herein as the Albertsons Platform, and unfairly compete with Replenium.
4 147. Albertsons’ disclosure or use of Replenium’s Trade Secrets has been without the
5 express or implied consent of Replenium where, at the time of the disclosure or use, Albertsons
6 knew or had reason to know—in light of the MNDA—that its knowledge of Replenium’s Trade
7 Secrets was acquired under circumstances giving rise to Albertsons’ duty to maintain their secrecy
10 that such action was a breach of its obligations under the MNDA and its duty to limit its use of the
11 Trade Secrets. Despite this, Albertsons continued to utilize Replenium’s Trade Secrets for its own
16 Trade Secrets, Replenium has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant damages.
18 substantial injury, including, inter alia, actual damages, lost profits, harm to reputation,
20 152. Replenium has been damaged as a result of Albertsons’ conduct and is entitled to
22 reasonably royalty, any unjust enrichment not encompassed in the computation of Replenium’s
24
25
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 34 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 35 of 42
1 COUNT III
8 Information solely for the Purpose, and for no other purpose” and to not “export, reverse engineer,
9 disassemble or decompile any prototypes software or other tangible objects that embody the other
11 157. “Purpose” pursuant to the MNDA was that “[t]he parties wish[ed] to share
12 information for the purpose of evaluating the suitability of entering into a business relationship or
14 158. Section 4 of the MNDA also prohibited Albertsons from disclosing the
15 Confidential Information to any of its representatives outside of those who needed to know it for
19 161. The MSA affirms, at section 9.1, that all confidential and proprietary information
20 disclosed by one party to the MSA to the other party “concerning or pertaining to the business of
22 162. Further, section 11.3(c) of the MSA provides that “Albertsons will use its
23 reasonable efforts to protect Company’s Intellectual Property rights in the Services and will report
25 becomes aware.”
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 35 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 36 of 42
1 163. Section 11.6 of the MSA further provides that “Albertsons will not . . . (b) copy,
2 modify or create any derivative works based on the Services or (c) disassemble, decompile, or
4 164. Albertsons breached the MNDA and MSA by failing to protect Replenium’s
6 Albertsons Platform.
7 165. Replenium suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages as a result of
9 COUNT IV
15 169. Under the MSA, and its incorporated SOWs as amended, Albertsons provided a
17 170. Commercial Launch was defined in the SOW as “the date mutually agreed to by
18 the parties on which Customers are able to begin placing Replenishment Orders in one or more
19 geographic or segmented markets. For the sake of clarity, the ability of Customers to place
20 Replenishment Orders as part of a friendly user trial of the Services does not constitute
21 Commercial Launch.” Commercial Launch was further defined in Appendix B to the SOW as
23 171. Further, Albertsons agreed to cooperate and assist Replenium in good faith to
24 achieve a nationwide expansion of the Replenium Platform to the public. Specifically, SOW §1.3
25 provides: “Cooperation and Assistance. In order to enable Company to provide the Services
26 [Albertsons] will: (a) provide Company with good faith cooperation and access to such
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 36 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 37 of 42
1 information, facilities, and equipment as reasonably requested by Company from time to time,
2 including, without limitation, providing Albertsons Content, personnel assistance, security access,
3 and software interfaces to the Albertsons Sites; (b) cooperate with Company pursuant to the
4 integration documents to be provided by Company; and (c) carry out in a timely manner all other
6 172. SOW §1.6 also requires Albertsons to “maximize the number of Replenishment
8 173. Replenium fulfilled its obligations under the MSA, devoting immense resources
9 and investing significant man-hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars per month, including
10 labor and technical infrastructure costs to provide Albertsons with the automated replenishment
12 174. Albertsons breached the MSA by failing to cooperate with Replenium in good faith
13 to accomplish the purpose of the MSA, failing to timely launch the Replenium Platform, failing to
14 timely carry out its obligations under the MSA, failing to maximize the number of Replenishment
15 Orders placed by its customers, and by diverting its resources toward launching its own auto-
18 175. Replenium suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages as a result of
20 COUNT V
25 178. Every contract contains implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, which is a
26 presumption that the parties to the contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 37 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 38 of 42
1 faith, so as to not destroy the rights of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the
2 contract. The implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing also prevent parties from
4 179. The MSA was agreed upon for the purpose of Albertsons and Replenium working
5 together toward a nationwide expansion of the Replenium Platform, including the full set of
7 180. Albertsons had a duty to act in good faith and work toward a nationwide expansion
8 of the Replenium Platform, with a full set of service features, consistent with the purpose of the
9 MSA.
10 181. Albertsons destroyed the purpose of the MSA by acting in bad faith to delay the
11 national expansion of the Replenium Platform, failing to incorporate service features specified in
12 the SOW, failing to disclose to Replenium that Albertsons was simultaneously developing its own
13 auto-replenishment platform, failing to protect Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential
14 Information while developing its own auto-replenishment platform, using Replenium’s Trade
15 Secrets and other Confidential Information in connection with its development of the Albertsons
16 Platform, and terminating the MSA on the eve of Albertsons’ nationwide expansion of the
17 Replenium Platform to deprive Replenium of the benefit of its bargained-for Services Fees.
18 182. Albertsons was aware that Replenium would not have entered into, or continued to
19 perform services under the MSA for three years, or shared Trade Secrets and other Confidential
20 Information, had it known that Albertsons would terminate the MSA prior to a nationwide
23 183. Albertsons repeatedly and intentionally delayed the launch and national expansion
24 of the Replenium Platform while it used Replenium’s Trade Secrets and other Confidential
25 Information it obtained pursuant to the MNDA and MSA to create and launch the Albertsons
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 38 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 39 of 42
1 Platform. In doing so, Albertsons intentionally deprived Replenium of the benefit of the bargain
2 of the MSA.
3 184. Replenium suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages as a result of
4 Albertsons’ breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing.
5 COUNT VI
6 Promissory Estoppel
10 nationwide expansion of the Replenium Platform in Albertsons’ locations across the country and
11 that Replenium would receive Service Fees based on that expansion to compensate it for its losses
16 continue its work on the Replenium Platform beyond its obligations under the MSA and to incur
19 would nationally expand on specific dates, including July 22, 2022 and February 15, 2023,
21 190. Replenium has suffered significant financial hardship and damages as a result of
23 COUNT IV
24 Unjust Enrichment
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 39 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 40 of 42
1 192. Albertsons obtained a benefit from Replenium in the form of services and
2 confidential information that Replenium was not obligated to provide to Albertsons under any
3 contract. Through three years of services and information sharing, Albertson received the know-
5 193. Replenium invested millions of dollars and countless hours and resources in
6 providing Albertsons with the services and information it required of Replenium, costing
7 Replenium its investment and the opportunity to provides services to and profit from working with
8 other retailers.
9 194. If Albertsons had not received the benefit of Replenium’s knowledge, information,
10 technology, business logic, and know-how, it would have had to spend significant resources in an
11 attempt create this technology on its own or by paying another third party. Accordingly, it
13 195. Albertsons appreciated, accepted, and retained the benefit it obtained under
14 inequitable and unjust circumstances arising from Albertsons’ conduct toward Replenium,
15 including during the time that Albertson was building its own auto-replenishment platform that it
16 knew would deprive Replenium of the opportunity to be compensated for its services and
17 information.
18 196. Albertsons profited, and continues to profit, from Replenium’s services and
19 information without providing Replenium with just compensation for the benefit received from
20 Replenium.
21 197. Under the circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair for Albertsons to be
22 permitted to retain any of the benefits obtained from Replenium without payment to Replenium.
25 A. Enter judgment that Albertsons violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act by
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 40 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 41 of 42
1 B. Enter judgment that Albertsons violated the Washington Uniform Trade Secret Act
3 C. Enter judgment that the MNDA is valid and enforceable, and has been breached by
4 Albertsons, and that Replenium has been damaged as a result of Albertsons’ breach;
5 D. Enter judgment that the MSA is valid and enforceable, and has been breached by
6 Albertsons, and that Replenium has been damaged as a result of Albertsons’ breach;
7 E. Enter judgment that Albertsons breached the implied covenant of good faith and
8 fair dealing implied in the MSA, and that Replenium has been damaged as a result of Albertsons’
9 breach;
12 G. Enter judgment that Albertsons has been unjustly enriched as a result of unjustly
13 avoided costs to build the Albertsons Platform and by reaping the benefit of Replenium’s services
16 determined at trial;
18 J. Award Replenium attorneys’ fees in such other amounts as may be proven by trial
21 L. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 41 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001
Case 2:24-cv-01281 Document 1 Filed 08/19/24 Page 42 of 42
4 DATED this 19th day of August, 2024. SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
5 By s/ Lawrence C. Locker
Lawrence C. Locker, WSBA #15819
6
Rebecca Singleton, WSBA #57719
7 315 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98104-2682
8 Tel.: (206) 676-7000
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
10
SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
11 Jason C. Spiro
(Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming)
12
Meredith Sharoky Paley
13 (Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming)
40 Exchange Place, Suite 1404
14 New York, NY 10005
Tel.: (973) 232-0881
15 Fac.: (973) 232-0887
[email protected]
16
[email protected]
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff Replenium Inc.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 42 SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1281 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Fax: (206) 676-7001