(8) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

We lease our Company-owned restaurants and office facilities under non-cancelable operating leases with remaining minimum terms ranging from one month to 14 years. Our lease agreements generally contain base rent escalations that are either fixed pursuant to the lease agreement or based on the consumer price index. We are also required to pay contingent rentals on certain of our leases in amounts between 5% and 8% of gross sales above a minimum threshold.

The following table sets forth certain information related to our rental activities as of the periods presented:


	Year Ended
(in thousands)	December 31, 2017		January 1, 2017
Rent expense	$	2,950	$	4,282
Cash rental payments		3,024		3,737
Sublease income		(264)		(386)

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases, as of December 31, 2017, are as follows:


(in thousands)
Fiscal Year
2018	$	1,892
2019		1,702
2020		1,587
2021		1,575
2022		1,308
Thereafter		3,424
Total operating lease obligations		11,488
Sublease income		(1,230)
Total	$	10,258

Litigation

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

We 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. By court order, dated June 6, 2016, Famous Dave’s successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, enjoining the former franchisee defendants from using Famous Dave’s intellectual property, including its trademarks and restaurant system. The preliminary injunction was the subject of an interlocutory appeal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument took place on August 10, 2017. On October 23, 2017, the California Court of Appeal rendered its decision in the appeal in Famous Dave’s favor, affirming and upholding in full the trial court’s preliminary injunction order. Famous Dave’s intends to vigorously pursue all remaining claims in the trial court. Trial is set for November 5, 2018.

On July 28, 2015, this group of former 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. We have not recognized a liability with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim because we do not believe that it is probable that we will incur a related material loss. Famous Dave’s intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Trial is set for November 5, 2018.