Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Nov. 03, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company had no material off balance sheet commitments as of November 3, 2018. Contingencies The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. These disputes are increasing in number as the business expands and the Company grows larger. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. As a result, the outcome of matters in which the Company is involved could result in unexpected expenses and liability that could adversely affect the Company’s operations. In addition, any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. The Company reviews the need for any loss contingency reserves and establishes reserves when, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a matter would result in liability, and the amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Generally, in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of those matters, particularly in cases in which claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, it is not possible to determine whether a liability has been incurred or to reasonably estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until the case is close to resolution, in which case no reserve is established until that time. When and to the extent that the Company does establish a reserve, there can be no assurance that any such recorded liability for estimated losses will be for the appropriate amount, and actual losses could be higher or lower than what the Company accrues from time to time. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of its current matters will not have a material adverse effect on its condensed consolidated financial statements. Securities Class Action On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company’s inventory levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 26, 2018, the Court filed an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint and the case is in discovery. On October 11, 2018, the court certified the class. On October 25, 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the grant of class certification. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the claims and believe the complaint lacks merit. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On April 24, 2018, purported Company shareholder David Magnani filed a purported shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Magnani v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-02452). On June 29, 2018, Hosrof Izmirliyan filed a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint in the same forum, captioned Izmirliyan v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-03930). On July 29, 2018, the court consolidated both derivative actions, and the consolidated action is captioned In re RH Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On August 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names RH as a nominal defendant and Gary Friedman, Karen Boone, Carlos Alberini, Keith Belling, Eri Chaya, Mark Demilio, Katie Mitic, Ali Rowghani and Leonard Schlesinger as defendants. The allegations substantially track those in the securities class action described above. Plaintiffs bring claims against all individual defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The plaintiffs also allege insider trading and misappropriation of information claims against two of the individual defendants. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages, corporate governance changes, restitution, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this derivative action. On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings and a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. A hearing date for the two motions has not yet been set.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Nov. 03, 2018

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Company had no material off balance sheet commitments as of November 3, 2018.

Contingencies

The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. These disputes are increasing in number as the business expands and the Company grows larger. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. As a result, the outcome of matters in which the Company is involved could result in unexpected expenses and liability that could adversely affect the Company’s operations. In addition, any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources.

The Company reviews the need for any loss contingency reserves and establishes reserves when, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a matter would result in liability, and the amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Generally, in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of those matters, particularly in cases in which claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, it is not possible to determine whether a liability has been incurred or to reasonably estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until the case is close to resolution, in which case no reserve is established until that time. When and to the extent that the Company does establish a reserve, there can be no assurance that any such recorded liability for estimated losses will be for the appropriate amount, and actual losses could be higher or lower than what the Company accrues from time to time. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of its current matters will not have a material adverse effect on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Securities Class Action

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company’s inventory levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. On February 26, 2018, the Court filed an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint and the case is in discovery. On October 11, 2018, the court certified the class. On October 25, 2018, the Company filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the grant of class certification. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the claims and believe the complaint lacks merit.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On April 24, 2018, purported Company shareholder David Magnani filed a purported shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Magnani v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-02452). On June 29, 2018, Hosrof Izmirliyan filed a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint in the same forum, captioned Izmirliyan v. Friedman et al. (No. 18-cv-03930). On July 29, 2018, the court consolidated both derivative actions, and the consolidated action is captioned In re RH Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On August 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names RH as a nominal defendant and Gary Friedman, Karen Boone, Carlos Alberini, Keith Belling, Eri Chaya, Mark Demilio, Katie Mitic, Ali Rowghani and Leonard Schlesinger as defendants. The allegations substantially track those in the securities class action described above. Plaintiffs bring claims against all individual defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The plaintiffs also allege insider trading and misappropriation of information claims against two of the individual defendants. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages, corporate governance changes, restitution, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this derivative action. On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings and a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. A hearing date for the two motions has not yet been set.