Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jan. 29, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8 — Commitments and Contingencies The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland’s, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers’ receipts and sought statutory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d. Cir. 2019). Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing. On October 16, 2020, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in an unpublished order. On December 29, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal and vacated the Superior Court’s order. Specifically, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court to provide its rationale for the denial of the Company’s Petition for Allowance to Appeal. The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. The matter is covered by insurance, and the Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland’s Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland’s employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. Kirkland’s denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. The Court held a hearing on the class certification motion on January 14, 2022, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify in its entirety. In addition, the Court set a case management conference for April 15, 2022, at which time the Court will set trial and related dates. The Company continues to believe the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. The Company is also party to other pending legal proceedings and claims that arise in the normal course of business. Although the outcome of such proceedings and claims cannot be determined with certainty, the Company’s management is of the opinion that it is unlikely that such proceedings and any claims in excess of insurance coverage will have a material effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jan. 29, 2022

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 8 — Commitments and Contingencies

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland’s, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers’ receipts and sought statutory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d. Cir. 2019). Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing. On October 16, 2020, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in an unpublished order. On December 29, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal and vacated the Superior Court’s order. Specifically, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court to provide its rationale for the denial of the Company’s Petition for Allowance to Appeal. The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. The matter is covered by insurance, and the Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland’s Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland’s employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages

and injunctive relief. Kirkland’s denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. The Court held a hearing on the class certification motion on January 14, 2022, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify in its entirety. In addition, the Court set a case management conference for April 15, 2022, at which time the Court will set trial and related dates. The Company continues to believe the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

The Company is also party to other pending legal proceedings and claims that arise in the normal course of business. Although the outcome of such proceedings and claims cannot be determined with certainty, the Company’s management is of the opinion that it is unlikely that such proceedings and any claims in excess of insurance coverage will have a material effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows.