LITIGATION	3 Months Ended
Apr. 03, 2016
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation Disclosure [Text Block]	(15) Litigation In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in a number of litigation matters that are incidental to the operation of the business. These matters generally include, among other things, matters with regard to employment and general business-related issues. The Company currently believes that the resolution of any of these pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or liquidity, but an adverse decision in more than one of the matters could be material to its consolidated results of operations. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.’s (“Famous Dave’s”) filed a complaint on July 14, 2015, against a group of former franchisees in California seeking injunctive relief and damages for: (1) Federal Trademark Infringement; (2) Federal Trademark Dilution; (3) Federal Unfair Competition; (4) Federal Trade Dress Dilution; (5) Trademark Infringement under California Business and Professions Code § 14200; (6) Trademark Dilution under California Business and Professions Code §14200; (7) Common Law Trademark Infringement; (8) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; (9) False Advertising; (10) Breach of Contract; (11) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (12) Intentional Interference with Contract. The claims stem from the former franchisees breaches of their franchise agreements, including the failure to pay franchise fees and their continued operation of five restaurants utilizing Famous Dave’s intellectual property without authorization. After two defendants in the case, Kurt Schneiter and M Mart 1, filed a demurrer to the Complaint, Famous Dave’s filed an Amended Complaint on October 9, 2015, reasserting the same claims. The case is captioned Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., v. SR El Centro FD, Inc., et al., Case No. BC589329, and is currently pending before the Honorable Elihu M. Berle in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. On July 28, 2015, these franchisees (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Famous Dave’s in the South Judicial District of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. On March 10, 2016, Plaintiffs re-filed this Complaint as a First Amended Cross-Complaint [Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. SR El Centro, Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division, Case No. BC589329] alleging that Famous Dave’s breached the Franchise Agreements for these restaurants by failing to provide certain marketing support and access to customer contact data, vendors, internet reporting and support to Plaintiffs, and failing to provide operations and preferred practices training to Plaintiffs’ designated representative. Plaintiffs further allege that such conduct by Famous Dave’s is a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs also allege that Famous Dave’s aided and abetted John and Allan Gantes in breach of their fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in amount not less than $20 million, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

(15) Litigation

In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in a number of litigation matters that are incidental to the operation of the business. These matters generally include, among other things, matters with regard to employment and general business-related issues. The Company currently believes that the resolution of any of these pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or liquidity, but an adverse decision in more than one of the matters could be material to its consolidated results of operations.

Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.’s (“Famous Dave’s”) filed a complaint on July 14, 2015, against a group of former franchisees in California seeking injunctive relief and damages for: (1) Federal Trademark Infringement; (2) Federal Trademark Dilution; (3) Federal Unfair Competition; (4) Federal Trade Dress Dilution; (5) Trademark Infringement under California Business and Professions Code § 14200; (6) Trademark Dilution under California Business and Professions Code §14200; (7) Common Law Trademark Infringement; (8) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; (9) False Advertising; (10) Breach of Contract; (11) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (12) Intentional Interference with Contract. The claims stem from the former franchisees breaches of their franchise agreements, including the failure to pay franchise fees and their continued operation of five restaurants utilizing Famous Dave’s intellectual property without authorization. After two defendants in the case, Kurt Schneiter and M Mart 1, filed a demurrer to the Complaint, Famous Dave’s filed an Amended Complaint on October 9, 2015, reasserting the same claims. The case is captioned Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., v. SR El Centro FD, Inc., et al., Case No. BC589329, and is currently pending before the Honorable Elihu M. Berle in the Superior Court of Los Angeles.

On July 28, 2015, these franchisees (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Famous Dave’s in the South Judicial District of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. On March 10, 2016, Plaintiffs re-filed this Complaint as a First Amended Cross-Complaint [Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. SR El Centro, Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division, Case No. BC589329] alleging that Famous Dave’s breached the Franchise Agreements for these restaurants by failing to provide certain marketing support and access to customer contact data, vendors, internet reporting and support to Plaintiffs, and failing to provide operations and preferred practices training to Plaintiffs’ designated representative. Plaintiffs further allege that such conduct by Famous Dave’s is a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs also allege that Famous Dave’s aided and abetted John and Allan Gantes in breach of their fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in amount not less than $20 million, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.