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 $0.5 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. Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM . On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the “TCPA”). Specifically, the complaint asserts a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the plaintiff and others. The complaint seeks class certification and damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages under the TCPA. We filed our initial response to this matter with the court on March 15, 2017. At this time, we are unable to determine a reasonable range of potential loss for this matter, which could be material. 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. In September 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. In June 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 in July 2016, which brought the same claims as her original complaint but added various factual allegations. In August 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. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal, and Plaintiff’s opening brief is due to be filed on May 30, 2017. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. 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 . In June 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 in December 2014. We answered the complaint in January 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 in September 2016. The court preliminarily approved the settlement in October 2016, and notice of the settlement was issued to class members. Upon completion of the claims process, the court approved the final settlement in February 2017. We concluded this matter with the payment of the final settlement in April 20, 2017. The final settlement amount was not materially different from the amount previously accrued when a loss provision was established. 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 $0.7 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. |