Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may become involved in lawsuits and other claims arising from our ordinary course of business. 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. Tillys 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 Californias 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. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so. Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tillys, 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 asserted a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the plaintiff and others. The complaint sought class certification and damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages under the TCPA. In March 2017, we filed our initial response to this matter with the court. In June 2017, the parties attended a mediation. In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject to court approval, and we recorded an estimated loss provision of $6.2 million in connection with the proposed settlement during the second quarter of fiscal 2017. In March 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement, subject to final court approval. In April 2018, the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and certified a class for settlement purposes. In May 2018, the class members were sent notice of the settlement and in August 2018, the court granted final approval of the settlement. As a result, we recorded a $1.5 million reduction in our original accrual estimate to reflect the final required cash payments to be made as part of this settlement which were subsequently paid in October 2018. Additionally, we were required to issue non-transferable discount coupons to approximately 612,000 existing Tillys customers not covered by the cash payments in early September 2018. These coupons entitle the recipient to a one -time 50% discount on a single purchase transaction of up to $1,000 . Any unused coupons will expire on September 4, 2019. As of November 3, 2018, less than one percent of these coupons had been redeemed, representing less than one quarter of one percent of total sale transactions since the coupons were issued. Consequently, these coupons had no material impact on our fiscal 2018 third quarter comparable store net sales or operating results as a whole. On a transactional basis, redemption transactions have produced an average sale that is approximately three times larger than non-redemption transactions during this same time period, but with a significantly lower margin rate. The net result has been an increase in net margin dollars produced per redemption transaction that is approximately 20 percent higher than non-redemption transactions. There can be no assurances that these results, or the level of redemptions, will remain consistent through the redemption period, particularly during the 2018 holiday season. Although redemption activity has been low during the first two months of the redemption period, the potential impact through September 4, 2019 could be material and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tillys, 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 Tilly's and dismissed the complaint. 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 plaintiffs causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief, and our responding appellate brief was filed in December 2017. In May 2018, the plaintiff filed her reply appellate brief. Later in May 2018, an amicus brief was filed by Abercrombie &amp; Fitch Stores, Inc., in support of Tillys position in this appeal. Oral argument was heard by the California Court of Appeal in November 2018, and we are awaiting its written opinion. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so. In June 2015, we and one of our vendors entered into a settlement arrangement with a plaintiff who filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the vendor and us related to certain vendor products we sell. The settlement required that the vendor pay $2.0 million to the plaintiff over three years , and we agreed to guarantee such payments in exchange for a security interest in the vendor's intellectual property. We concluded this matter with the final settlement payment on June 5, 2018. The total settlement amount paid by us was not materially different from the amount previously accrued.