Subsequent Events	6 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2015
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Subsequent Events	Note 8. Subsequent Events On September 28, 2015, a purported class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting claims arising under federal securities laws against the Company and certain individual defendants. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate the Company’s stock price by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations, financial results and future business prospects in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint. On October 23, 2015, Stephen Kramer filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Orange County, California, Superior Court purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiff alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and improper insider sales of stock in violation of California law based on the allegation that, since October 17, 2014, the individual defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate the Company’s stock price by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations, financial results, internal controls and future business prospects. The plaintiff seeks an award of damages and restitution to the Company from the individual defendants, disgorgement of the defendants’ profits and compensation, an order requiring the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff and its counsel. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint. The Company currently believes that the disposition of these matters is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Note 8. Subsequent Events

On September 28, 2015, a purported class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting claims arising under federal securities laws against the Company and certain individual defendants. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate the Company’s stock price by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations, financial results and future business prospects in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint.

On October 23, 2015, Stephen Kramer filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Orange County, California, Superior Court purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiff alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and improper insider sales of stock in violation of California law based on the allegation that, since October 17, 2014, the individual defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate the Company’s stock price by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations, financial results, internal controls and future business prospects. The plaintiff seeks an award of damages and restitution to the Company from the individual defendants, disgorgement of the defendants’ profits and compensation, an order requiring the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff and its counsel. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint.

The Company currently believes that the disposition of these matters is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.