(15) Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases its retail store, office space, and warehouse locations under non-cancelable operating leases. Certain of these leases include tenant allowances that are amortized over the life of the lease. In 2017, 2016 and 2015, the Company received tenant allowances of $10,696, $16,718, and $5,652, respectively. The Company expects to receive $6,112 in tenant allowances under leases during fiscal year 2018. Certain leases require the Company to pay contingent rental amounts based on a percentage of sales, in addition to real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and other operating expenses associated with the leased premises. These agreements expire at various dates through July 2030 and generally contain three, five-year renewal options. Rent expense under these leases totaled $49,860, $37,132, and $33,209, for the fiscal years ended February 3, 2018, January 28, 2017 and January 30, 2016, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments for non-cancelable operating leases by fiscal year, as of February 3, 2018 are as follows:


Fiscal Year:

2018		45,128
2019		43,531
2020		42,883
2021		38,759
2022		34,455
Thereafter		98,730
	$	303,486

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in various legal matters generally incidental to its business. After discussion with legal counsel, management is not aware of any matters for which the likelihood of a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and which could have a material impact on its consolidated financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.

On March 12, 2014, the Company was added as a defendant to a pending consolidated action filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, captioned as Lacey Market Place Associates II, LLC, et al. v. United Farmers of Alberta Co-Operative Limited, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00383-JLR against United Farmers of Alberta Co-Operative Limited (the seller of Wholesale Sports), Wholesale Sports, Alamo Group, LLC and Donald F. Gaube and spouse. The amended complaint was filed by the landlords of two stores that the Company did not assume in the Company’s purchase of assets from Wholesale Sports. Such stores were formerly operated by Wholesale Sports in Skagit and Thurston Counties in Washington. The amended complaint alleged breach of lease, breach of collateral assignment, misrepresentation, intentional interference with contract, piercing the corporate veil and violation of Washington’s Fraudulent Transfer Act. The Company was named as a co-defendant with respect to the intentional interference with contract and fraudulent conveyance claims. The amended complaint sought against the Company and all defendants unspecified money damages, declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 28, 2015, the court in the Lacey Marketplace action granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the intentional interference claim against the Company, but declined to dismiss the fraudulent transfer claim.

Trial in the Lacey Marketplace action began March 2, 2015 and concluded March 6, 2015. On March 9, 2015, the jury in the trial assessed $11,887 against the defendants to the action, including the Company. The Company reviewed the decision and accrued $4,000 in its results for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015 related to this matter. The Company strongly disagreed with the jury’s verdict and filed post-trial motions seeking to have the verdict set aside. On July 30, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Based on the court’s most recent judgment in favor of the Company on July 30, 2015, the Company determined that the likelihood of loss in this case is not probable, and, as such, the Company reversed the previous accrual of $4,000 in its results for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016. Both United Farmers of Alberta Co-Operative Limited, a co-defendant, and the plaintiff have appealed the court’s summary judgment ruling against the tortious interference claim, and the July 30, 2015 ruling setting aside the jury verdict, to the appellate court. The oral argument for the appeal was conducted on December 5, 2017 and on December 21, 2017 the appeals court ruled there to be no judgment against Sportsman’s Warehouse.