Home Depot Reclaims Purchased Pickup Orders Without Notice, Class Action Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit filed by a Los Angeles resident claims Home Depot has violated California’s abandoned property laws in its handling of merchandise purchased for later pickup.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 18-page lawsuit says that Home Depot USA, Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc. have “routinely and willfully” failed to make reasonable efforts to communicate with customers to determine if they intended to abandon goods they purchased for future pickup, in violation of state law. In addition, the suit alleges that Home Depot did not notify buyers that the merchandise would be reclaimed if not picked up by a certain date, provide notice of the goods’ resale or issue refunds to consumers.

Home Depot’s policy states that all “will call” items—that is, merchandise purchased for customer pickup later—that are not claimed by the buyer within 30 days are subject to their state’s abandoned property law, which in California requires holders of unclaimed property to reasonably attempt to communicate with an owner before taking action, the case explains.

However, in violation of state law and without notice to the owners of the goods, Home Depot has purportedly “canceled” such purchases that had not yet been picked up and repossessed, restocked and resold the merchandise, even though the original buyers had already paid in full, the complaint contends. Despite the defendants’ full knowledge of consumers’ credit card details and contact information, no refunds have been issued to original purchasers, even in the case of “special order” merchandise, which should have resulted in an 85-percent refund after a 15-percent restocking fee, the filing claims.

The lawsuit further alleges that Home Depot has sometimes falsely identified “will call” goods as having been picked up by the customer. Such merchandise has apparently been labeled as “Assumed Pickup” or “Customer Pickup” in the company’s tracking system, though no documentation existed in the records to reflect that, the suit relays.

The plaintiff, who has made several “will call” purchases of construction materials and building equipment from Home Depot in the past few years, never expressed his intention to abandon the items that the store was holding for him, the case says. To the contrary, the goods were new, expensive and still subject to the store’s return policy, the complaint adds.

As the filing tells it, the plaintiff has lost more than $40,000 in goods purchased from numerous Home Depot locations in California without being refunded.

By repossessing and reselling products already paid for by consumers, the defendants have acted in “deliberate disregard for the property rights of the owners … and with the wrongful intention to delay, or avoid altogether, having [them] pick up their merchandise and/or claim refunds,” the case charges.

The lawsuit looks to represent:

“All California purchasers of Goods Sold for Later Pickup (excluding ‘custom made goods,’ which were not ‘returnable’ under Defendants’ agreements with the purchasers) which included items which were not later actually picked up by, or on behalf of the purchaser (or delivered to the purchaser) within 30 days of purchase (hereinafter ‘Purchased Goods Not Claimed’), unless, as to each such purchase by the purchaser, a Defendant has:

• Refunded to the purchaser, within 60 days of purchase, 100% of the price paid for the Purchased Goods Not Claimed which were not ‘Special Order Merchandise’ and 85% of the price paid by that purchaser for the Purchased Goods Not Claimed which were ‘Special Order Merchandise’; or,
• Confirmed in writing with the purchaser that the Purchased Goods Not Claimed were abandoned, and thereafter within three years of purchaser’s purchase, said Defendant properly provided purchaser with a notice in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 1520(b), and thereafter complied with California’s Unclaimed Property laws.”

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.