Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
2-May-15 |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 5: Commitments and Contingencies |
|
From time to time, we may become involved in lawsuits and other claims arising from our ordinary course of business. We are currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any litigation or claim, determine whether a liability has been incurred or make an estimate of the reasonably possible liability that could result from an unfavorable outcome because of the uncertainties related to the incurrence, amount and range of loss on any pending litigation or claim. Because of the unpredictable nature of these matters, we cannot provide any assurances regarding the outcome of any litigation or claim to which we are a party or that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters threatened or pending against us, including those disclosed below, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. See “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015 for important factors that could adversely impact us and our results of operations. |
|
Kristin Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-00139010. On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June 2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs have amended the complaint and the parties are proceeding with discovery on class certification issues. Class certification briefing is currently expected to conclude in July 2015 with a hearing in August 2015. The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. We intend to defend this case vigorously. |
|
Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly’s, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC. On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California’s wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013, to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act. In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014, we filed an answer to the amended complaint. We intend to defend this case vigorously. |
|
Karina Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No, BC 548252. On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against us alleging violations of California’s wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015. We intend to defend this case vigorously. |
|
Herbert Ortiz and Audra Haynes, individually, and on behalf of the generally public, v. Tilly’s Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No, 1:15-CV-00108-MJS. On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, alleging violations of California’s wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 21, 2015, we answered the complaint and removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On March 2, 2015, the parties stipulated to stay the action while they discuss settlement. The parties also stipulated that if settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, the plaintiffs’ claims will be arbitrated on an individual, and not a class or representative, basis, as required under the terms of the arbitration agreements they signed. If the matter does not settle, the Company intends to defend the case vigorously. |
|
On June 10, 2015, we and one of our vendors entered into a settlement arrangement with a plaintiff who filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against us and the vendor related to certain vendor products we sell. The settlement requires that the vendor pay $2.0 million to the plaintiff over three years and we have agreed to guarantee such payments. In connection with the settlement: (i) we have agreed to advance an initial payment of $0.2 million to the plaintiff in exchange for a promissory note from the vendor in the amount of $0.2 million, (ii) we entered into an agreement to purchase a minimum of $1.0 million in merchandise from our vendor, some of which may be offset against our obligation under the settlement arrangement in the event of the vendor’s default, and (iii) we have received a security interest in certain of our vendor’s intellectual property. In the event of the vendor’s default, it is reasonably possible that we could incur a loss as the guarantor and we would attempt to enforce our security interest in certain of the vendor’s intellectual property. The current estimated range of a reasonably possible loss is zero to $2.0 million representing our best estimate with respect to this matter and is based on currently available information. |