Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may become involved in lawsuits and other claims arising from our ordinary course of business. We have established loss provisions of approximately $2.2 million for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For some matters, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome, 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. Kirstin 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. 34-2013-139010. 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. The complaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In June 2013, the court granted our motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The parties completed class certification discovery and briefing, and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015. On September 17, 2015, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In October 2016, the named plaintiffs’ individual claims were settled, and the entire case dismissed with prejudice. 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 of 2004. 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. The parties attended a mediation proceeding and reached a settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 10, 2016. 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, the plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act of 2004 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 sought class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 3, 2014. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015, denying all allegations. We engaged in mediation in May 2016, and the parties reached a resolution that was presented to the court for preliminary approval on September 13, 2016. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 4, 2016, and notice of the settlement was issued to class members. Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405. On September 1, 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law. Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of the applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims. The complaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. On June 21, 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's. Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. At the hearing on the plaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2016, which brought the same claims as her original complaint but added various factual allegations. On August 5, 2016, we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff's amended complaint still failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's, for the same reasons that the court granted our demurrer as to the plaintiff's original complaint. A court hearing was held on the demurrer on October 26, 2016, and on November 21, 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. Plaintiff may appeal the order to the California Court of Appeal. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. 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 the event of the vendor's default, the current estimated range of a reasonably possible loss is zero to $1.5 million . If required to perform under this settlement, we would utilize all available rights of offset to reduce our potential loss, including application of amounts owed by us to the vendor from our ongoing purchases of the vendor's merchandise and/or the enforcement of a security interest we have in the vendor's intellectual property. |