Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company enters into various purchase obligations in the ordinary course of business. Those that are binding primarily relate to amounts owed under contractor and subcontractor agreements, orders submitted for equipment for restaurants under construction, commitment for food purchases, and corporate sponsorships. As of December 31, 2012, total purchase obligations were $126,218. Litigation California ADA Cases In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the Company’s restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2008. In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a ruling in which it found that although the Company’s counter height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney’s fees and minimal damages to the plaintiff. The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district court. On March 21, 2012, the district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief. On July 18, 2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the plaintiff a portion of the attorney’s fees and costs originally sought, and on December 26, 2012, the court of appeals awarded the plaintiff additional attorney’s fees and costs for the appellate portion of the case. In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims against the Company in those cases on an individual basis. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on class certification, which was denied by the court on January 14, 2013. The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a significant majority of the Company’s restaurants outside of California as well. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the ongoing class action cases. Due to the possibility of further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional potential liability from those cases. Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations Following an inspection during 2010 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, of the work authorization documents of the Company’s restaurant employees in Minnesota, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, or ICE, issued to the Company a Notice of Suspect Documents identifying a large number of employees who, according to ICE and notwithstanding the Company’s review of work authorization documents for each employee at the time they were hired, appeared not to be authorized to work in the U.S. The Company approached each of the named employees to explain ICE’s determination and afforded each employee an opportunity to confirm the validity of their original work eligibility documents, or provide valid work eligibility documents. Employees who were unable to provide valid work eligibility documents were terminated in accordance with the law. In December 2010, the Company was also requested by DHS to provide the work authorization documents of restaurant employees in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and the Company provided the requested documents in January 2011. The Company has received additional requests for work authorization documents covering a small number of individual restaurants as well, and ICE’s investigation remains ongoing. In April 2011, the Company also received notice from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that it is conducting an investigation into these matters through its criminal division. The operating hours of the Company’s Minnesota, D.C. and Virginia restaurants have been uninterrupted by these developments, and the Company believes its practices with regard to the work authorization of its employees, including the review and retention of work authorization documents, are in compliance with applicable law. However, the termination of large numbers of employees in a short period of time does disrupt restaurant operations and results in a temporary increase in labor costs as new employees are trained. In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the Company that it is conducting a civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with employee work authorization verification requirements and its related disclosures and statements, and the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia advised the Company that its investigation has broadened to include a parallel criminal and civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with federal securities laws. The Company intends to continue to fully cooperate in the government’s investigations. It is not possible at this time to determine whether the Company will incur any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with these matters. Shareholder Derivative Actions On July 12, 2012, Ralph B. Richey filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters. On September 21, 2012, Joanne Nelson filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer breached their fiduciary duties, caused waste of corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters, as well as in connection with the Company’s alleged failure to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects, and in connection with compensation paid to some of the Company’s officers. On October 4, 2012, Francis Schmitz filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court, making allegations substantially the same as those in the Nelson complaint. Each of these actions purports to state a claim for damages on behalf of the Company, and is based on statements in the Company’s SEC filings and related public disclosures, as well as media reports and Company records, in part regarding the matters described above under “-Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations.” On January 17, 2013, these three shareholder derivative actions were consolidated by the court and will proceed as a single action. The Company intends to defend the cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases. Shareholder Class Actions On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company’s common stock between February 1, 2012 and July 19, 2012. On August 17, 2012, Sonia Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters complaint. The complaints purport to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based on the Company’s alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects. The complaints assert that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the Company’s stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the cases. Miscellaneous The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Obligations

The Company enters into various purchase obligations in the ordinary course of business. Those that are binding primarily relate to amounts owed under contractor and subcontractor agreements, orders submitted for equipment for restaurants under construction, commitment for food purchases, and corporate sponsorships. As of December 31, 2012, total purchase obligations were $126,218.

Litigation

California ADA Cases

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the Company’s restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a ruling in which it found that although the Company’s counter height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney’s fees and minimal damages to the plaintiff. The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district court. On March 21, 2012, the district court reaffirmed its original award of minimal damages to the plaintiff and denied further injunctive relief. On July 18, 2012, the district court ordered a final judgment awarding the plaintiff a portion of the attorney’s fees and costs originally sought, and on December 26, 2012, the court of appeals awarded the plaintiff additional attorney’s fees and costs for the appellate portion of the case.

In the purported class action cases, on August 28, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. As a result, each plaintiff may only pursue claims against the Company in those cases on an individual basis. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on class certification, which was denied by the court on January 14, 2013.

The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a significant majority of the Company’s restaurants outside of California as well. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the ongoing class action cases. Due to the possibility of further appeals and the uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate any additional potential liability from those cases.

Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations

Following an inspection during 2010 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, of the work authorization documents of the Company’s restaurant employees in Minnesota, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, or ICE, issued to the Company a Notice of Suspect Documents identifying a large number of employees who, according to ICE and notwithstanding the Company’s review of work authorization documents for each employee at the time they were hired, appeared not to be authorized to work in the U.S. The Company approached each of the named employees to explain ICE’s determination and afforded each employee an opportunity to confirm the validity of their original work eligibility documents, or provide valid work eligibility documents. Employees who were unable to provide valid work eligibility documents were terminated in accordance with the law. In December 2010, the Company was also requested by DHS to provide the work authorization documents of restaurant employees in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and the Company provided the requested documents in January 2011. The Company has received additional requests for work authorization documents covering a small number of individual restaurants as well, and ICE’s investigation remains ongoing. In April 2011, the Company also received notice from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that it is conducting an investigation into these matters through its criminal division. The operating hours of the Company’s Minnesota, D.C. and Virginia restaurants have been uninterrupted by these developments, and the Company believes its practices with regard to the work authorization of its employees, including the review and retention of work authorization documents, are in compliance with applicable law. However, the termination of large numbers of employees in a short period of time does disrupt restaurant operations and results in a temporary increase in labor costs as new employees are trained.

In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the Company that it is conducting a civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with employee work authorization verification requirements and its related disclosures and statements, and the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia advised the Company that its investigation has broadened to include a parallel criminal and civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with federal securities laws.

The Company intends to continue to fully cooperate in the government’s investigations. It is not possible at this time to determine whether the Company will incur any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with these matters.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On July 12, 2012, Ralph B. Richey filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters. On September 21, 2012, Joanne Nelson filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer breached their fiduciary duties, caused waste of corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters, as well as in connection with the Company’s alleged failure to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects, and in connection with compensation paid to some of the Company’s officers. On October 4, 2012, Francis Schmitz filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court, making allegations substantially the same as those in the Nelson complaint. Each of these actions purports to state a claim for damages on behalf of the Company, and is based on statements in the Company’s SEC filings and related public disclosures, as well as media reports and Company records, in part regarding the matters described above under “-Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations.” On January 17, 2013, these three shareholder derivative actions were consolidated by the court and will proceed as a single action. The Company intends to defend the cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases.

Shareholder Class Actions

On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company’s common stock between February 1, 2012 and July 19, 2012. On August 17, 2012, Sonia Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters complaint. The complaints purport to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations, based on the Company’s alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects. The complaints assert that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the Company’s stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the cases.

Miscellaneous

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.