LL Flooring (LLFLQ) 10-Q 29 Apr 15 2015 Q1 Quarterly report Financial data

Document_And_Entity_Informatio

Document And Entity Information	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015	Apr. 27, 2015
Document Information [Line Items]
Document Type	10-Q
Amendment Flag	FALSE
Document Period End Date	31-Mar-15
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2015
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q1
Entity Registrant Name	Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.
Entity Central Index Key	1396033
Current Fiscal Year End Date	-19
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Trading Symbol	LL
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		27,080,952

Condensed_Consolidated_Balance

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (USD $)	Mar. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2014
In Thousands, unless otherwise specified
Current Assets:
Cash and Cash Equivalents	$43,889	$20,287
Merchandise Inventories	301,476	314,371
Prepaid Expenses	7,488	5,575
Other Current Assets	12,669	17,044
Total Current Assets	365,522	357,277
Property and Equipment, net	129,190	124,867
Goodwill	9,693	9,693
Other Assets	1,622	1,625
Total Assets	506,027	493,462
Current Liabilities:
Accounts Payable	63,574	80,303
Customer Deposits and Store Credits	34,165	34,943
Accrued Compensation	4,028	3,693
Sales and Income Tax Liabilities	5,486	7,472
Other Current Liabilities	36,409	17,836
Total Current Liabilities	143,662	144,247
Deferred Rent	6,647	6,603
Deferred Tax Liability	10,508	10,558
Revolving Credit Facility	20,000	0
Total Liabilities	180,817	161,408
Stockholders' Equity:
Common Stock ($0.001 par value; 35,000,000 shares authorized; 27,080,952 and 27,069,307 shares outstanding, respectively)	30	30
Treasury Stock, at cost (2,822,927 and 2,816,780 shares, respectively)	-138,953	-138,692
Additional Capital	179,021	177,479
Retained Earnings	286,253	294,033
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss	-1,141	-796
Total Stockholders' Equity	325,210	332,054
Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity	$506,027	$493,462

Condensed_Consolidated_Balance1

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) (USD $)	Mar. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2014
Common Stock, par value	$0.00	$0.00
Common Stock, shares authorized	35,000,000	35,000,000
Common Stock, shares outstanding	27,080,952	27,069,307
Treasury Stock, shares	2,822,927	2,816,780

Condensed_Consolidated_Stateme

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss) (USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Net Sales	$259,961	$246,291
Cost of Sales	168,349	145,004
Gross Profit	91,612	101,287
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses	97,445	78,866
Operating (Loss) Income	-5,833	22,421
Other (Income) Expense	251	94
(Loss) Income Before Income Taxes	-6,084	22,327
Provision for Income Taxes	1,696	8,633
Net (Loss) Income	($7,780)	$13,694
Net (Loss) Income per Common Share-Basic	($0.29)	$0.50
Net (Loss) Income per Common Share-Diluted	($0.29)	$0.49
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
Basic	27,071,684	27,521,443
Diluted	27,071,684	27,832,110

Condensed_Consolidated_Stateme1

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Net (Loss) Income	($7,780)	$13,694
Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments	-345	151
Comprehensive (Loss) Income	($8,125)	$13,845

Condensed_Consolidated_Stateme2

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Net (Loss) Income	($7,780)	$13,694
Adjustments to Reconcile Net (Loss) Income to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities:
Depreciation and Amortization	4,170	3,437
Stock-Based Compensation Expense	1,326	1,514
Changes in Operating Assets and Liabilities:
Merchandise Inventories	12,662	4,897
Accounts Payable	-15,464	-16,305
Customer Deposits and Store Credits	-671	11,170
Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets	2,454	-533
Other Assets and Liabilities	16,460	4,421
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities	13,157	22,295
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Purchases of Property and Equipment	-8,980	-14,384
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities	-8,980	-14,384
Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
Payments for Stock Repurchases	-261	-17,664
Proceeds from the Exercise of Stock Options	0	2,089
Excess Tax Benefit from Stock-Based Compensation	-78	3,224
Borrowings on Revolving Credit Facility	39,000	0
Payments on Revolving Credit Facility	-19,000	0
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities	19,661	-12,351
Effect of Exchange Rates on Cash and Cash Equivalents	-236	-129
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents	23,602	-4,569
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Period	20,287	80,634
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Period	$43,889	$76,065

Basis_of_Presentation

Basis of Presentation	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements Disclosure	Note 1.        Basis of Presentation
	Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively and, where applicable, individually, the “Company”) engage in business as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories, operating as a single business segment. The Company offers an extensive assortment of exotic and domestic hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate and vinyl plank flooring direct to the consumer. The Company also features the renewable flooring products, bamboo and cork, and provides a wide selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives and flooring tools. These products are primarily sold under the Company’s private label brands, including the premium Bellawood brand floors. The Company also provides in-home delivery and installation services to certain of its customers. The Company sells primarily to homeowners or to contractors on behalf of homeowners through a network of 347 store locations in primary or secondary metropolitan areas in 46 states and nine store locations in Canada at March 31, 2015. In addition to the store locations, the Company’s products may be ordered, and customer questions/concerns addressed, through both its call center in Toano, Virginia, and its website, www.lumberliquidators.com. The Company finishes the majority of the Bellawood products on its finishing lines in Toano, Virginia, which along with the call center, corporate offices, and a distribution center, represent the “Corporate Headquarters.”
	The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q for interim financial reporting pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. While these statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results of the interim period, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by United States (“U.S.”) generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. Therefore, the interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes included in the Company’s annual report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.
	The consolidated financial statements of the Company include the accounts of its wholly owned subsidiaries and variable interest entity for which the Company is the primary beneficiary. All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
	Results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

Summary_of_Significant_Account

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	Note 2.        Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
	Fair Value of Financial Instruments
	The carrying amounts of financial instruments such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable, other liabilities and borrowings under the revolving credit agreement approximate fair value because of the short-term nature of these items. Of these financial instruments, the cash equivalents are classified as Level 1 as defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board ASC 820 fair value hierarchy.
	Merchandise Inventories
	The Company values merchandise inventories at the lower of cost or market value. In determining market value, the Company makes judgments and estimates as to the market value of its products, based on factors such as historical results and current sales trends. The Company maintains an inventory reserve for loss or obsolescence which was $4,937 at March 31, 2015 and $3,242 at December 31, 2014. Any reasonably likely changes that may occur in the future related to the assumptions used in the reserve may require the Company to record charges for losses or obsolescence against its assets in the future.
	Recognition of Net Sales
	The Company recognizes net sales for products purchased at the time the customer takes possession of the merchandise. Service revenue, primarily installation revenue and freight charges for in-home delivery, is included in net sales and recognized when the service has been rendered. The Company reports sales exclusive of sales taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental taxing authorities, and net of an allowance for anticipated sales returns based on historical and current sales trends and experience. The sales returns allowance and related changes were not significant for the three month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014.
	Cost of Sales
	Cost of sales includes the cost of the product sold, cost of installation services, transportation costs from vendor to the Company’s distribution centers or store locations, any applicable finishing costs related to production of the Company’s proprietary brands, transportation costs from distribution centers to store locations, transportation costs for the delivery of products from store locations to customers, certain costs of quality control procedures, warranty and customer satisfaction costs, inventory adjustments including shrinkage, and costs to produce samples, reduced by vendor allowances. In the first quarter of 2015, cost of sales included approximately $1,800 incurred for the air quality testing program provided to the Company’s customers.
	The Company offers a range of limited warranties from the durability of the finish on its prefinished products to its services provided. Warranty reserves are based primarily on claims experience, sales history and other considerations, including payments made to satisfy customers for claims not directly related to the warranty on the Company’s products. Warranty costs are recorded in cost of sales. The reserve was estimated using information through the date of the financial statements. This reserve, included in other current liabilities, was $2,377 at March 31, 2015 and $1,568 at December 31, 2014. Should the Company’s actual experience related to results of its indoor air quality testing program and subsequent follow-up with customers differ from these estimates, additional reserves for customer satisfaction costs may be recorded in the future.

Stockholders_Equity

Stockholders' Equity	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Equity [Abstract]
Stockholders' Equity	Note 3.        Stockholders’ Equity
	Net (Loss) Income per Common Share
	The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share:
		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2015		2014
	Net (Loss) Income	$	-7,780	$	13,694
	Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic		27,071,684		27,521,443
	Effect of Dilutive Securities:
	Common Stock Equivalents		—		310,667
	Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted		27,071,684		27,832,110
	Net (Loss) Income per Common Share—Basic	$	-0.29	$	0.5
	Net (Loss) Income per Common Share—Diluted	$	-0.29	$	0.49
	The following have been excluded from the computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted because the effect would be anti-dilutive:
		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2015		2014
	Stock Options		692,430		35,366
	Restricted Shares		102,966		6,534
	Stock Repurchase Program
	The Company’s board of directors has authorized the repurchase of up to $150,000 of the Company’s common stock. At March 31, 2015, the Company had $14,728 remaining under this authorization. During the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company did not repurchase any shares of its common stock under this program. During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company repurchased 168,000 shares of its common stock at an average price of $99.39 per share for an aggregate cost of $16,698.

Related_Party_Transactions

Related Party Transactions	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Related Party Transactions [Abstract]
Related Party Transactions	Note 4.        Related Party Transactions
	As of March 31, 2015, the Company leased 30 of its locations and the Corporate Headquarters, which includes a store location, representing 8.7% of the total number of store leases in operation, from entities controlled by the Company’s founder and current chairman of the board (“Controlled Companies”). As of March 31, 2014, the Company leased 28 of its locations and the Corporate Headquarters, representing 8.8% of the total number of store leases in operation at that time, from Controlled Companies. Rental expense related to Controlled Companies was as follows:
		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2015		2014
	Rental expense related to Controlled Companies	$	754	$	760

Income_Taxes

Income Taxes	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Income Tax Disclosure [Abstract]
Income Taxes	Note 5.        Income Taxes
	The year-over-year difference in the Company’s effective tax rate resulted primarily from an increase in the first quarter of 2015 in the Company’s liability for uncertain tax positions, excluding interest and penalties, related to uncertainty around the deductibility of a legal accrual. Additionally, the effective tax rate in the first quarter of 2015 was impacted by lower projected pretax income for 2015 as compared to 2014 actuals.

Revolving_Credit_Agreement

Revolving Credit Agreement	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Debt Disclosure [Abstract]
Revolving Credit Agreement	Note 6.        Revolving Credit Agreement
	On April 24, 2015, the Company, exclusive of the non-domestic subsidiaries, entered into a Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with Bank of America, N.A. as administrative agent, collateral agent and lender (the “Bank”). The Credit Agreement amended and restated the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Revolver”) that was entered into between Lumber Liquidators, Inc. and the Bank on February 21, 2012 and amended on March 27, 2015. Under the Credit Agreement, the Bank agreed to provide the Company with an asset-based revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Credit Facility”) under which the Company may obtain loans and letters of credit from the Bank up to a maximum aggregate outstanding principal amount of the lesser of $100,000 or a calculated borrowing base. Using March 31, 2015 balances, the calculated borrowing base would have been $115,598, calculated as 50% of the cost of eligible inventory, as defined in the Credit Agreement, plus 90% of credit card transactions which have not settled, less certain reserves. Letters of credit are subject to a sublimit of $20,000 (subject to the borrowing base). The Company has the option to increase the Revolving Credit Facility up to a maximum of $175,000 subject to the satisfaction of the conditions to such increase specified in the Credit Agreement.
	At March 31, 2015, the Company had $27,300 available to borrow under the Revolver, which was net of $2,700 in outstanding letters of credit and $20,000 in outstanding borrowings. At April 24, 2015, the Company had $79,129 available to borrow under the Revolving Credit Facility, which was net of $871 in outstanding letters of credit and $20,000 in outstanding borrowings.
	The Credit Agreement expires on April 24, 2020, is guaranteed by the Company and certain of its domestic subsidiaries and secured primarily by the Company’s inventory. The Revolving Credit Facility has no mandated payment provisions and a fee of 0.15% per annum on any unused portion, paid quarterly in arrears. Loans outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility can bear interest based on the Base Rate or the LIBOR Rate, each as defined in the Credit Agreement. Interest on Base Rate loans is charged at varying per annum rates computed by applying a margin ranging from 0.125% to 0.375% (dependent on the Company’s average daily excess borrowing availability during the most recently completed fiscal quarter) over the applicable base interest rate (defined as the greatest of the prime rate, a specified federal funds rate plus 0.50%, or the one-month LIBOR Rate plus 1.00%). Interest on LIBOR Rate loans and fees for standby letters of credit are charged at varying per annum rates computed by applying a margin ranging from 1.125% to 1.375% (dependent on the Company’s average daily excess borrowing availability during the most recently completed fiscal quarter) over the applicable LIBOR rate for one, two, three or six month interest periods as selected by the Company.
	The Credit Agreement contains a fixed charge coverage ratio covenant that becomes effective in the event that the Company’s excess borrowing availability under the Revolving Credit Facility at any time during the term of the Revolving Credit Facility falls below the greater of $10,000 or 10% of the borrowing base.

Commitments_and_Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 7.        Commitments and Contingencies
	Government Investigation
	On September 26, 2013, sealed search warrants were executed at the Company’s corporate offices in Toano and Richmond, Virginia by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The search warrants requested information, primarily documentation, related to the importation of certain of the Company’s wood flooring products in accordance with the Lacey Act. Since then, the Company has been cooperating with the federal authorities, including the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), in their investigation. In recent communications, the DOJ indicated that it is seeking criminal charges under the Lacey Act.
	In March 2015, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Special Committee”) was formed of independent directors to make decisions surrounding this matter, among others. The Company, through the Special Committee, expects to continue to communicate with the DOJ regarding its intentions and possible courses of action in this matter.
	Based on the information available, including communications with the DOJ, the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss that may result from this action is approximately $10,000, which the Company recorded in other current liabilities and selling, general and administrative expenses in the first quarter of 2015. The Company believes that there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss greater than or less than the amount accrued may be incurred, but the Company is unable to estimate the amount at this time.
	Securities Litigation Matter
	On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder, Chief Executive Officer and President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and President and its Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants"). On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the Company's compliance with the federal Lacey Act, the chemical content of certain of its wood products, and the Company's supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	TCPA Matter
	On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. (“RWA”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “RWA Lawsuit”), which was subsequently amended, alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA. RWA seeks recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties that received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from the Company. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. Although the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims asserted, the Company has agreed to a proposed settlement of the claims in the RWA Lawsuit, which the court has preliminary approved. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Company would pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, a sum to RWA and a cash sum to members of the putative class. Based upon the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss that may result from this action is approximately $300, which the Company accrued in 2014. In the event the court does not grant final approval of the proposed settlement, the Company intends to continue to defend this case vigorously but given the current status of the case, legal standards and pending motions, it would not be possible at this time for the Company to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Prop 65 Matter
	On or about July 23, 2014, Global Community Monitor and Sunshine Park LLC (together, the “Prop 65 Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, against the Company. In the complaint, the Prop 65 Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, et seq. (“Proposition 65”). In particular, the Prop 65 Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to warn consumers in California that certain of the Company’s products (collectively, the “Products”) emit formaldehyde in excess of the applicable safe harbor limits. The Prop 65 Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the Prop 65 Plaintiffs seek (i) equitable relief involving the reformulation of the Products, additional warnings related to the Products, the issuance of notices to certain of the purchasers of the Products (the “Customers”) and the waiver of restocking fees for Customers who return the Products and (ii) civil penalties in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars per day for each violation of Proposition 65. The Company disputes the claims of the Prop 65 Plaintiffs and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Further, the Company filed a counterclaim against the Prop 65 Plaintiffs for trade libel, unfair business practices, intentional interference with a prospective business advantage, negligent interference with economic relations, and declaratory relief. The Prop 65 Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaim, which was granted by the court on April 15, 2015. Among other things, the order calls for the Company to pay the Prop 65 Plaintiffs’ fees and costs incurred in filing and arguing their motion to dismiss. The Company currently intends to appeal the court’s ruling. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Gold Matter
	On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold (“Gold”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring (the “Bamboo Product”) that the Company sells is defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint, which added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, “Gold Plaintiffs”). Gold Plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product’s defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of two separate classes: (i) individuals in the United States who own homes or other structures where the Bamboo Product has been installed or where Bamboo Product has been removed and replaced; and (ii) the same description but for owners of California homes or structures only. Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company is financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of its profits received from the sale of the defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members. The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs’ claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Balero Matter
	On or about December 11, 2014, Joseph Michael Balero, Michael Ballerini and Lisa Miller (collectively, the “Balero Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda alleging that the Company engaged in unlawful and fraudulent business practices by selling certain products in California that do not comply with California’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products (the “CARB Standards”) and by falsely advertising and representing that such products meet the CARB Standards. The purported class consists of all California consumers that purchased the subject products since 2011. The Balero Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the Balero Plaintiffs seek (i) declarations that the Company’s policies and practices of labeling, advertising, distributing and selling certain products it sells in California violate the CARB Standards, (ii) injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from continuing to distribute and/or sell laminate flooring products that violate the CARB Standards, (iii) restitution of all money and/or property that the Balero Plaintiffs and other purported class members provided to the Company for the purchase and installation of certain products sold by the Company that allegedly violate the CARB Standards, and (iv) damages, including actual, compensatory and consequential, incurred by the Balero Plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the Company’s alleged breach of warranty. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; however, the judge has issued a stay until after the multidistrict litigation hearing (the “MDL Hearing”) in connection with the Products Liability Cases (as defined below), which is scheduled to be held on May 28, 2015, as the Company believes that this case will be consolidated with the Products Liability Cases. The Company disputes the claims of the Balero Plaintiffs and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Litigation Relating to Products Liability
	Through April 27, 2015, the Company is aware of 103 pending purported class action cases that have been filed against it since March 3, 2015 in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts relating to its laminate flooring manufactured in China (collectively, the Products Liability Cases”). The plaintiffs seek recovery under a variety of theories, which although not identical are generally similar, including negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act violations, state unfair competition act violations, state deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes consist either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class actions. Plaintiffs have not quantified damages sought from the Company in these class actions. However, in one proceeding, the plaintiff sent a demand letter requesting $12 for his individual claim.
	In one of these cases, Silverthorn v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et. al., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 27, 2015 (the “Silverthorn Litigation”), the plaintiff filed a motion for an order (i) requiring the Company to notify consumers of the Silverthorn Litigation, (ii) to provide plaintiff’s counsel’s contact information, and (iii) expedited discovery. In another of these cases, Washington v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 31, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to enjoin the Company from continuing with its air quality testing program. On April 22, 2015, the Company filed oppositions to each of these motions and is currently waiting for the applicable courts to issue a decision with respect to these motions.
	In addition, on or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele (“Steele”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele’s allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment, (v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Steele seeks (i) compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company’s breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The Company disputes Steele’s claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	The Company disputes the plaintiffs’ claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.
	Costello Matter
	On or about March 6, 2015, James Costello (“Costello”) filed a shareholder derivative suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company’s directors (the “Costello Defendants”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant only. In the complaint, Costello’s allegations include (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) insider selling and the misappropriation of certain of the Company’s information in connection therewith. Costello did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Costello seeks (i) against the Costello Defendants and in favor of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Costello Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment, (ii) extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust on or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Costello Defendants’ trading activities or their assets, and (iii) awarding to the Company restitution from the Costello Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Costello Defendants. On April 1, 2015, the case was voluntarily stayed. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Klein Matter
	On or about March 11, 2015, R. Andre Klein (“Klein”) filed a shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s directors, as well as the Company’s Senior Vice President, Supply Chain, Chief Merchandising Officer, and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the “Klein Defendants”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant only. In the complaint, Klein’s allegations include (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) abuse of control, (iii) gross mismanagement, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) insider trading. Klein did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Klein seeks (i) a declaration that the Klein Defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company, (ii) a determination and award to the Company of the damages sustained by the Company as a result of the violations of each of the Klein Defendants, jointly and severally, (iii) a directive to the Company and the Klein Defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders from a repeat of the events that led to the filing of this action, and (iv) a determination and award to the Company of exemplary damages in an amount necessary to punish the Klein Defendants and to make an example of the Klein Defendants to the community according to proof of trial. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	McBride Matter
	On or about March 27, 2015, James Michael McBride (“McBride”) filed a shareholder derivative suit in the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and County of James City, Virginia against the Company’s directors, as well as the Company’s Chief Merchandising Officer and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the “McBride Defendants”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant only. In the complaint, McBride’s allegations include (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) abuse of control, (iv) insider trading, and (v) unjust enrichment. McBride did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, McBride seeks (i) the awarding, against the McBride Defendants, and in favor of the Company, of damages sustained by the Company as a result of certain of the McBride Defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties and (ii) a directive to the Company to (a) take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, (b) comply with the Company’s existing governance obligations and all applicable laws and (c) protect the Company and its investors from a recurrence of the events that led to the filing of this action. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Doan Matter
	On or about April 1, 2015, Phuc Doan (“Doan”) filed a shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s directors, as well as the Company’s Senior Vice President, Supply Chain, Chief Merchandising Officer and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the “Doan Defendants”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant only. In the complaint, Doan’s allegations include (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) abuse of control, (iii) gross mismanagement, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) insider trading. Doan did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Doan seeks (i) a declaration that the Doan Defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties, (ii) the determination and awarding to the Company of the damages sustained by it as a result of the violations of the Doan Defendants, jointly and severally, together with interest thereon, (iii) a directive to the Company and the Doan Defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders from a repeat of the damaging events described in the complaint, (iv) the determination and awarding to the Company of exemplary damages in an amount necessary to punish the Doan Defendants and to make an example out of the Doan Defendants to the community according to proof at trial, and (v) the awarding of restitution to the Company from the Doan Defendants. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Amalgamated Bank Matter
	On or about April 15, 2015, Amalgamated Bank, as trustee for the Longview 600 Small Cap Index Fund, filed a shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s directors, as well as the Company’s Chief Merchandising Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, Supply Chain, and the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and President (collectively, the “Amalgamated Defendants”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant only. In the complaint, Amalgamated Bank’s allegations include (i) breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor and good faith, (ii) corporate waste, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) statutory conspiracy, and (v) common-law conspiracy. Amalgamated Bank did not quantify any alleged damages in its complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Amalgamated Bank seeks (i) a declaration that the Amalgamated Defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breaches of their fiduciary duties to the Company, (ii) the determination and awarding to the Company of the damages sustained by it as a result of the violations set forth in the complaint from each of the Amalgamated Defendants, jointly and severally, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (iii) the awarding to the Company, jointly and severally from the Amalgamated Defendants, of three times the amount of actual damages incurred by the Company as a result of the Amalgamated Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, (iv) the determination and awarding to the Company of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount necessary to punish the Amalgamated Defendants and to make an example of the Amalgamated Defendants to the community according to proof at trial, (v) a requirement that the Company establish corporate policies and procedures prohibiting the use of Chinese manufacturers of its products, (vi) prohibition against the Company using wood or wood products from the Russian Far East, (vii) a requirement that the Company establish corporate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with CARB standards for all of its flooring products, and (viii) disgorgement and payment to the Company of all compensation and profits made by the Amalgamated Defendants, and each of them, at any time during which such Amalgamated Defendants were breaching fiduciary duties owed to the Company and/or committing, or aiding and abetting the commitment of, corporate waste. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Lyznick Matter
	On or about April 16, 2015, Craig Lyznick, Shari Collins and Patricia Cottington (collectively, the “Lyznick Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Building Health Check, LLC and Pure Air Control Services, Inc. (collectively, the “Lyznick Defendants”) alleging that the Lyznick Defendants engaged in unlawful business practices and deceptive and fraudulent activities in connection with the Company’s efforts to provide in-home air quality test kits to certain of its customers. The purported class consists of all consumers that purchased certain laminated flooring products from the Company, requested a test kit from the Company and were provided a testing kit by the Lyznick Defendants. The Lyznick Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they seek (i) injunctive relief prohibiting the Lyznick Defendants from offering the test kit for formaldehyde testing or conducting such testing, (ii) restitution to the Lyznick Plaintiffs for sums paid to have their own testing performed, (iii) damages, including actual, compensatory and consequential, incurred by the Lyznick Plaintiffs, (iv) a declaration that the Lyznick Defendants’ actions constitute fraud and recovery any resulting damages, and (v) treble damages. The Company disputes the claims of the Lyznick Plaintiffs and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
	Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Investigation
	In October 2010, a conglomeration of domestic manufacturers of multilayered wood flooring filed a petition seeking the imposition of antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered wood flooring from China. This ruling applies to the Company’s engineered hardwood imported from China, which accounted for approximately 10% of its flooring purchases in 2014.
	The DOC made preliminary determinations regarding CVD and AD rates in April 2011 and May 2011, respectively. In December 2011, after certain determinations were made by the ITC and DOC, orders were issued setting final AD and CVD rates at 3.3% and 1.5%, respectively. These rates became effective in the form of additional duty deposits, which the Company has paid, and applied retroactively to the DOC preliminary determinations of April 2011 and May 2011.
	Following the issuance of the orders, a number of appeals were filed by several parties, including the Company, challenging various aspects of the determinations made by both the ITC and DOC, including certain aspects that may impact the validity of the AD and CVD orders and the applicable rates. The appeal of the CVD order is expected to be concluded by mid-2015. On January 23, 2015, the Court of International Trade issued a final decision rejecting the challenge of the AD rate for all but one Chinese exporter. This decision is expected to be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later in 2015 and may take a year to conclude.
	As part of its processes in these proceedings, the DOC conducts annual reviews of the CVD and AD rates. In such cases, the DOC issues preliminary rates that are not binding and subject to comment by interested parties. After consideration of the comments received, the DOC will issue final rates for the applicable period, which may lag by a year or more. As rates are adjusted through the administrative reviews, the Company adjusts its payments prospectively based on the final rate.
	In the first annual review in this matter, rates were modified for AD rates through November 2012 and for CVD rates through 2011. Specifically, the AD rate was set at 5.92% and the CVD rate was set at 0.83%. These rates are being appealed by several parties, including the Company. Nevertheless, at March 31, 2015, the Company was paying these rates on each applicable purchase.
	In January 2015, pursuant to the second annual review, the DOC issued a preliminary AD rate of 18.27% for purchases from December 2012 through November 2013 and a preliminary CVD rate of 0.97% for purchases in fiscal year 2012. These rates are pending final determinations by the DOC which are currently planned to be finalized in May 2015. If these rates are confirmed, the Company would owe approximately $5,700 for shipments during the applicable time periods. If these rates remain in effect for shipments subsequent to November 2013 (AD) and shipments subsequent to December 2012 (CVD), the Company would owe an additional $7,000 for all shipments through March 31, 2015. As this is a preliminary rate, the Company has not recorded an accrual in its consolidated financial statements for the impact of higher rates for the applicable time periods covered in the second annual review.
	Based on the information available, the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that an additional charge may be incurred in the range of $0 to $13,400.
	The third annual review of the AD and CVD rates has been initiated in February 2015, with preliminary rates expected in late 2015 or early 2016. Any change in the applicable rates as a result of the third annual review would apply to imports occurring after the second period of review.
	Other Matters
	The Company is also, from time to time, subject to claims and disputes arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, while the outcome of any such claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company’s ultimate liability in connection with these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Summary_of_Significant_Account1

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Fair Value of Financial Instruments	Fair Value of Financial Instruments
	The carrying amounts of financial instruments such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable, other liabilities and borrowings under the revolving credit agreement approximate fair value because of the short-term nature of these items. Of these financial instruments, the cash equivalents are classified as Level 1 as defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board ASC 820 fair value hierarchy.
Merchandise Inventories	Merchandise Inventories
	The Company values merchandise inventories at the lower of cost or market value. In determining market value, the Company makes judgments and estimates as to the market value of its products, based on factors such as historical results and current sales trends. The Company maintains an inventory reserve for loss or obsolescence which was $4,937 at March 31, 2015 and $3,242 at December 31, 2014. Any reasonably likely changes that may occur in the future related to the assumptions used in the reserve may require the Company to record charges for losses or obsolescence against its assets in the future.
Recognition of Net Sales	Recognition of Net Sales
	The Company recognizes net sales for products purchased at the time the customer takes possession of the merchandise. Service revenue, primarily installation revenue and freight charges for in-home delivery, is included in net sales and recognized when the service has been rendered. The Company reports sales exclusive of sales taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental taxing authorities, and net of an allowance for anticipated sales returns based on historical and current sales trends and experience. The sales returns allowance and related changes were not significant for the three month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014.
Cost of Sales	Cost of Sales
	Cost of sales includes the cost of the product sold, cost of installation services, transportation costs from vendor to the Company’s distribution centers or store locations, any applicable finishing costs related to production of the Company’s proprietary brands, transportation costs from distribution centers to store locations, transportation costs for the delivery of products from store locations to customers, certain costs of quality control procedures, warranty and customer satisfaction costs, inventory adjustments including shrinkage, and costs to produce samples, reduced by vendor allowances. In the first quarter of 2015, cost of sales included approximately $1,800 incurred for the air quality testing program provided to the Company’s customers.
	The Company offers a range of limited warranties from the durability of the finish on its prefinished products to its services provided. Warranty reserves are based primarily on claims experience, sales history and other considerations, including payments made to satisfy customers for claims not directly related to the warranty on the Company’s products. Warranty costs are recorded in cost of sales. The reserve was estimated using information through the date of the financial statements. This reserve, included in other current liabilities, was $2,377 at March 31, 2015 and $1,568 at December 31, 2014. Should the Company’s actual experience related to results of its indoor air quality testing program and subsequent follow-up with customers differ from these estimates, additional reserves for customer satisfaction costs may be recorded in the future.

Stockholders_Equity_Tables

Stockholders' Equity (Tables)	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Equity [Abstract]
Computation of Basic and Diluted Net Income Per Common Share
	The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share:
		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2015		2014
	Net (Loss) Income	$	-7,780	$	13,694
	Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic		27,071,684		27,521,443
	Effect of Dilutive Securities:
	Common Stock Equivalents		—		310,667
	Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted		27,071,684		27,832,110
	Net (Loss) Income per Common Share—Basic	$	-0.29	$	0.5
	Net (Loss) Income per Common Share—Diluted	$	-0.29	$	0.49
Anti-Dilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding Diluted	The following have been excluded from the computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted because the effect would be anti-dilutive:
		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2015		2014
	Stock Options		692,430		35,366
	Restricted Shares		102,966		6,534

Related_Party_Transactions_Tab

Related Party Transactions (Tables)	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015
Related Party Transactions [Abstract]
Related Party Transactions	Rental expense related to Controlled Companies was as follows:
		Three Months Ended March 31,
		2015		2014
	Rental expense related to Controlled Companies	$	754	$	760

Basis_of_Presentation_Addition

Basis of Presentation - Additional Information (Detail)	Mar. 31, 2015
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]
Number of states in which stores operates	46
Number Of Domestic Stores	347
Number Of Canadian Stores	9

Summary_of_Significant_Account2

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies - Additional Information (Detail) (USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014	Dec. 31, 2014
Organization And Business Operations [Line Items]
Inventory Valuation Reserves	$4,937		$3,242
Product Warranty Accrual	2,377		1,568
Cost of Goods and Services Sold, Total	$168,349	$145,004

Computation_of_Basic_and_Dilut

Computation of Basic and Diluted Net Income Per Common Share (Detail) (USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Schedule Of Computation Of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Common Share [Line Items]
Net Income	($7,780)	$13,694
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding - Basic	27,071,684	27,521,443
Effect of Dilutive Securities:
Common Stock Equivalents	0	310,667
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding - Diluted	27,071,684	27,832,110
Net Income per Common Share - Basic	($0.29)	$0.50
Net Income per Common Share - Diluted	($0.29)	$0.49

AntiDilutive_Securities_Exclud

Anti-Dilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding-Diluted (Detail)	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Stock Options
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items]
Anti-dilutive securities excluded from computation of earning per share	692,430	35,366
Restricted Stock Awards
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items]
Anti-dilutive securities excluded from computation of earning per share	102,966	6,534

Stockholders_Equity_Additional

Stockholders' Equity - Additional Information (Detail) (Stock Repurchase Program, USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2014	Mar. 31, 2015
Stock Repurchase Program
Stock Repurchase Programs [Line Items]
Stock repurchase program, authorized amount		$150,000
Common stock repurchased, remaining authorized amount		14,728
Treasury Stock, Shares, Acquired	168,000
Treasury Stock Acquired, Average Cost Per Share	$99.39
Treasury Stock, Value, Acquired, Cost Method	$16,698

Rental_Expense_Detail

Rental Expense (Detail) (Controlled Companies, USD $)	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Controlled Companies
Operating Leased Assets [Line Items]
Rental expense related to Controlled Companies	$754	$760

Related_Party_Transactions_Add

Related Party Transactions - Additional Information (Detail) (Controlled Companies)	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014
Controlled Companies
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Related Party Leased Stores	30	28
Percentage Aggregate Number Store Lease In Operation	8.70%	8.80%

Revolving_Credit_Agreement_Add

Revolving Credit Agreement - Additional Information (Detail) (USD $)	1 Months Ended	3 Months Ended
In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Apr. 24, 2015	Mar. 31, 2015	Mar. 31, 2014	Dec. 31, 2014
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Current Borrowing Capacity		$20,000
Line of Credit Facility, Unused Capacity, Commitment Fee Percentage	0.15%
Proceeds from Lines of Credit		39,000	0
Long-term Line of Credit, Noncurrent		20,000		0
Subsequent Event [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Covenant Terms	letters of credit and $20,000 in outstanding borrowings.
Line of Credit Facility, Maximum Borrowing Capacity	79,129
Pecentage Of Credit Card Transaction	90.00%
Long-term Line of Credit, Noncurrent	20,000
Debt Instrument, Collateral Amount	115,598
Percentage Of Eligible Inventory	50.00%
Revolving Credit Facility [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Covenant Terms		10.00%
Proceeds from Lines of Credit		27,300
Debt Instrument, Description of Variable Rate Basis		a specified federal funds rate plus 0.50%, or the one-month LIBOR Rate plus 1.00%).
Line of Credit Covenant Trigger		10,000
Revolving Credit Facility [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Maximum Borrowing Capacity	175,000
Minimum [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Percentage Rate Add On To Libor Rate For Revolving Credit Facility	0.13%
Minimum [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Maximum Borrowing Capacity	100,000
Minimum [Member] | Revolving Credit Facility [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Percentage Rate Add On To Libor Rate For Revolving Credit Facility	1.13%
Maximum [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Percentage Rate Add On To Libor Rate For Revolving Credit Facility	0.38%
Maximum [Member] | Revolving Credit Facility [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Percentage Rate Add On To Libor Rate For Revolving Credit Facility	1.38%
Letter of Credit
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Current Borrowing Capacity		2,700
Letter of Credit | Subsequent Event [Member]
Line of Credit Facility [Line Items]
Line of Credit Facility, Current Borrowing Capacity	$871

Commitments_and_Contingencies_

Commitments and Contingencies - Additional Information (Detail) (USD $)	1 Months Ended	12 Months Ended	1 Months Ended	12 Months Ended		1 Months Ended		3 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2014	Nov. 30, 2012	Nov. 30, 2013	Dec. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2014	Jul. 23, 2014	Mar. 31, 2015
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss				5,700,000				$7,000,000
Loss Contingency Multilayered Handwood Products Purchase Percentage		10.00%
Loss Contingency Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate	3.30%
Loss Contingency Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate	1.50%
First Annual Review
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate			5.92%
Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate	0.83%
Second Annual Review
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Antidumping Duty Rate				18.27%
Loss Contingency Modified Purchase Price Of Countervailing Duties Rate					0.97%
Antidumping Duties
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Range of Possible Loss, Minimum								0
Loss Contingency, Range of Possible Loss, Maximum								13,400,000
TCPA Matter
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss		300,000
Damages sought by Plaintiff, value						500
Prop 65 Matter
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Damages sought by Plaintiff, value							2,500
The Products Liability Cases
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Damages sought by Plaintiff, value								12,000
Department of Justice
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss								$10,000,000