CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2011
CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 8 – CONTINGENCIES In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that we violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees (“Louisiana matter”). The plaintiffs sought to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 5, 2005, the Court issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former assistant store managers who worked for us since November 23, 2001. As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter. Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana matter. We filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on August 24, 2007. The trial began on May 7, 2008 and concluded on May 15, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the Court issued an order decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs. After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the Court. On January 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their respective cases before the Court. Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice. On April 2, 2009, the Court awarded the two remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $0.1 million plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were determined to be $0.4 million. We appealed both of these decisions. Subsequent to the Court's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed individual actions in the Court. On August 13, 2009, we filed a writ of mandamus challenging the Court's jurisdiction to hear these cases. This writ was denied on October 20, 2009. On January 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was preliminarily settled for $4.0 million, and on June 29, 2010, the Court conditionally approved the settlement. Following additional administrative processing, all settled cases will be dismissed with prejudice. As of March 2011, we received executed releases from all of the 172 plaintiffs and all cases have been dismissed. In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that we violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees (“Gromek matter”). The plaintiffs sought to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who were similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. We answered the plaintiffs' complaint on August 12, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court 1) conditionally certify a class of then-current and former assistant store managers employed during the prior three years, excluding those employed in California or New York, and 2) authorize the plaintiffs to send a notice of this lawsuit to those putative class members to allow them to join this lawsuit. We have opposed the plaintiffs' motion. On December 17, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On February 11, 2011, we filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims and transfer those claims to various venues around the country. On February 22, 2011, the Court denied our motion without prejudice and granted limited discovery. We are currently engaged in the limited discovery granted by the Court. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Gromek matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that we violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees (“New York matter”). In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the State of New York. The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and order rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant store managers working in our New York stores. On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional class certification under federal law, class certification under state law and class notice. On May 14, 2010, we filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's motion. On January 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court deny the plaintiff's motion. On March 17, 2011, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's motion. On May 31, 2011, we entered into a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiff to resolve the New York matter. We currently await the Court's dismissal of the New York matter. The New York matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that we violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Seals matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 29, 2009, the Court denied, with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion. On January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 2, 2010, the California Court of Appeals notified the parties that the case was fully briefed and that a hearing for oral argument will be scheduled. On April 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court's decision denying class certification. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that we violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Avitia matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated, filed an amended complaint that removed the class and representative allegations and asserted only individual actions. We have answered the amended complaint and are engaged in discovery. The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals matter. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Avitia matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, we currently believe the Avitia matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed against us by a California resident (the “Caron matters”). The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is similar in nature to the Seals matter, which enabled us to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that we violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. We believed these two matters overlapped and we successfully consolidated the two cases before the United States District Court, Central District of California. We believe the remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa matter, which was settled in 2008 (for further discussion of the Espinosa matter, see note 10 to our consolidated financial statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009). On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification motion. On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, our motion to deny class certification. Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, alleging that we violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims (“Sample matter”). The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating, and attorneys' fees and costs. In July 2010, we answered the plaintiff's complaint and filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On August 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the United States District Court, Northern District of California remand this lawsuit to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. On November 30, 2010, the United States District Court, Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the Sample matter to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. We are awaiting the scheduling of the initial case management conference. The Sample matter is similar in nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. In 1998, an action was filed against us in the District Court, 224th Judicial District, in Bexar County, Texas (“State Court”) by a plaintiff claiming she was injured when she fell in one of our stores ("Rivera matter"). The Rivera matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Federal Court”) and the claim was fully litigated. Ultimately, the Federal Court granted summary judgment in our favor in January 2000. The plaintiff re-filed the same complaint in April 2000 in the State Court and then obtained a default judgment against us on June 20, 2000 in the amount of approximately $1.5 million plus post-judgment interest, which brings the total claim against us to approximately $3.4 million. No effort was made to collect on this judgment by the plaintiff until February 2009, when we were served with a writ of execution of judgment. We filed a petition for a bill of review with the State Court. Since that time, the Federal Court issued an order reflecting that the January 2000 order was a summary judgment with prejudice in our favor. Notwithstanding the Federal Court's order, the State Court rendered a summary judgment decision in the plaintiff's favor. We appealed the State Court's decision and asked the Federal Court to issue an injunction against the State Court's proceedings. On March 25, 2010, the Federal Court denied our motion for an injunction and denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Federal Court's order confirming that it granted summary judgment with prejudice. On April 6, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Federal Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 22, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the appeal of the State Court's decision. On November 3, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the state court ruling. On December 17, 2010, we filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. On April 28, 2011, oral arguments were held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Rivera matter; however, we currently believe that the Rivera matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. We are involved in other legal actions and claims, including various additional employment-related matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. We currently believe that such actions and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

NOTE 8 – CONTINGENCIES

In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that we violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees (“Louisiana matter”). The plaintiffs sought to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 5, 2005, the Court issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former assistant store managers who worked for us since November 23, 2001. As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter. Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana matter. We filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on August 24, 2007. The trial began on May 7, 2008 and concluded on May 15, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the Court issued an order decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs. After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the Court. On January 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their respective cases before the Court. Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice. On April 2, 2009, the Court awarded the two remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $0.1 million plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were determined to be $0.4 million. We appealed both of these decisions. Subsequent to the Court's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed individual actions in the Court. On August 13, 2009, we filed a writ of mandamus challenging the Court's jurisdiction to hear these cases. This writ was denied on October 20, 2009. On January 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was preliminarily settled for $4.0 million, and on June 29, 2010, the Court conditionally approved the settlement. Following additional administrative processing, all settled cases will be dismissed with prejudice. As of March 2011, we received executed releases from all of the 172 plaintiffs and all cases have been dismissed.

In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that we violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees (“Gromek matter”). The plaintiffs sought to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who were similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. We answered the plaintiffs' complaint on August 12, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court 1) conditionally certify a class of then-current and former assistant store managers employed during the prior three years, excluding those employed in California or New York, and 2) authorize the plaintiffs to send a notice of this lawsuit to those putative class members to allow them to join this lawsuit. We have opposed the plaintiffs' motion. On December 17, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On February 11, 2011, we filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims and transfer those claims to various venues around the country. On February 22, 2011, the Court denied our motion without prejudice and granted limited discovery. We are currently engaged in the limited discovery granted by the Court. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Gromek matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that we violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees (“New York matter”). In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the State of New York. The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and order rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant store managers working in our New York stores. On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional class certification under federal law, class certification under state law and class notice. On May 14, 2010, we filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's motion. On January 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court deny the plaintiff's motion. On March 17, 2011, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's motion. On May 31, 2011, we entered into a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiff to resolve the New York matter. We currently await the Court's dismissal of the New York matter. The New York matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that we violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Seals matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 29, 2009, the Court denied, with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion. On January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 2, 2010, the California Court of Appeals notified the parties that the case was fully briefed and that a hearing for oral argument will be scheduled. On April 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court's decision denying class certification. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that we violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Avitia matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated, filed an amended complaint that removed the class and representative allegations and asserted only individual actions. We have answered the amended complaint and are engaged in discovery. The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals matter. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Avitia matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, we currently believe the Avitia matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed against us by a California resident (the “Caron matters”). The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is similar in nature to the Seals matter, which enabled us to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that we violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. We believed these two matters overlapped and we successfully consolidated the two cases before the United States District Court, Central District of California. We believe the remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa matter, which was settled in 2008 (for further discussion of the Espinosa matter, see note 10 to our consolidated financial statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009). On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification motion. On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, our motion to deny class certification. Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, alleging that we violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims (“Sample matter”). The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating, and attorneys' fees and costs. In July 2010, we answered the plaintiff's complaint and filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On August 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the United States District Court, Northern District of California remand this lawsuit to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. On November 30, 2010, the United States District Court, Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the Sample matter to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. We are awaiting the scheduling of the initial case management conference. The Sample matter is similar in nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In 1998, an action was filed against us in the District Court, 224th Judicial District, in Bexar County, Texas (“State Court”) by a plaintiff claiming she was injured when she fell in one of our stores ("Rivera matter"). The Rivera matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Federal Court”) and the claim was fully litigated. Ultimately, the Federal Court granted summary judgment in our favor in January 2000. The plaintiff re-filed the same complaint in April 2000 in the State Court and then obtained a default judgment against us on June 20, 2000 in the amount of approximately $1.5 million plus post-judgment interest, which brings the total claim against us to approximately $3.4 million. No effort was made to collect on this judgment by the plaintiff until February 2009, when we were served with a writ of execution of judgment. We filed a petition for a bill of review with the State Court. Since that time, the Federal Court issued an order reflecting that the January 2000 order was a summary judgment with prejudice in our favor. Notwithstanding the Federal Court's order, the State Court rendered a summary judgment decision in the plaintiff's favor. We appealed the State Court's decision and asked the Federal Court to issue an injunction against the State Court's proceedings. On March 25, 2010, the Federal Court denied our motion for an injunction and denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Federal Court's order confirming that it granted summary judgment with prejudice. On April 6, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Federal Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 22, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the appeal of the State Court's decision. On November 3, 2010, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the state court ruling. On December 17, 2010, we filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. On April 28, 2011, oral arguments were held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Rivera matter; however, we currently believe that the Rivera matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

We are involved in other legal actions and claims, including various additional employment-related matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. We currently believe that such actions and claims, both individually and in the aggregate, will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.