Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jan. 29, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnifications, Commitments, and Guarantees

During the normal course of business, we have made certain indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees under which we may be required to make payments for certain transactions. These indemnifications include, but are not limited to, those given to various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facility or lease, and indemnifications to our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the state of Delaware. The majority of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments we could be obligated to make, and their duration may be indefinite. We have not recorded any liability for these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Purchase Obligations

At January 29, 2022, our future minimum payments under agreements to purchase services primarily for software maintenance aggregated to $4.7 million, payable as follows: $3.2 million in fiscal 2022, $0.8 million in fiscal 2023, $0.5 million in fiscal 2024, $0.2 million in fiscal 2025 and $0.1 million in fiscal 2026.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in lawsuits and other claims arising from our ordinary course of business. We establish loss provisions 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.

Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against us, alleging various violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In December 2017, we filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against us seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. We requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration agreement which plaintiff signed with our co-defendant, BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed. The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify us for all of our losses and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so. We believe that a loss is currently not probable or estimable under ASC 450, “Contingencies,” and no accrual has been made with regard to the verdict.

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, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought class certification, 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 us. 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. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim. In March 2019, we filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which we opposed. In October 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. In December 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying her motion for class certification. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of her appeal, which the Court of Appeal granted with a remittitur to return the case to the trial court where the case would proceed only with respect to the plaintiff’s individual claims. In March 2022, the parties

executed a settlement agreement which obligates the Plaintiff to dismiss the case with prejudice once customary terms are met, as a result we have established a loss provision of $0.2 million.