Note 11 - Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 11. Contingencies Litigation We are party to numerous legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. Although we do not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business or the proceedings described below will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows, we cannot predict this with certainty. In Re Lithia Motors Derivative Litigation On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a Lithia shareholder, filed derivative claims on behalf of Lithia against its Board of Directors, listing Lithia as a nominal defendant. The case, Stein v. DeBoer, et al., Case No. 15CV33696, is pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Marion County. Ms. Stein’s claims relate to the adoption of a transition agreement between Lithia and Sidney B. DeBoer, as disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed September 16, 2015. Ms. Stein alleges that Lithia's directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and wasted corporate assets, when they approved the agreement with Mr. DeBoer. Ms. Stein also alleges a claim against Sidney B. DeBoer, asserting that he has been unjustly enriched by the agreement. Ms. Stein is seeking relief in the amount of damages allegedly sustained by Lithia as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and alleged corporate waste, disgorgement and imposition of a constructive trust on all property and profits Sidney B. DeBoer received as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct, and an award of the costs and disbursements of the lawsuit, including reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The Board and Mr. DeBoer filed Motions to Dismiss the Stein suit on February 26, 2016. On February 12, 2016, Marty A. Jessos, a Lithia shareholder, also filed derivative claims on behalf of Lithia against its Board of Directors, listing Lithia as a nominal defendant. The case, Jessos v. DeBoer, et al., Case No. 16CV04181, was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. The Jessos suit involves the same subject matter and alleges substantially the same facts, claims, and causes of action as the Stein suit. On March 22, 2016, the Jessos suit was transferred to Marion County Circuit Court. On April 4, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order of Consolidation in the Stein suit to consolidate both Stein and Jessos under the Stein suit, Case No. 15CV33696. On April 4, 2016, the Court signed the consolidation order. The case is now known as In re Lithia Motors Derivative Litigation, Case No. 15CV33696. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on April 15, 2016. The Board and Mr. DeBoer filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 10, 2016. The Court issued its ruling on the Motions on August 12, 2016. The Court determined that a majority of the Board was independent, but also that Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to withstand the Motions to Dismiss. For that reason, the Court denied the Board's and Mr. DeBoer's Motions. The Board and Mr. DeBoer filed their Answers to the consolidated complaint on October 10, 2016. The parties are now engaged in discovery. California Wage and Hour Litigations In June 2012, Mr. Robles and Mr. Laredo brought claims against DCH Tustin Acura (Robles vs. Tustin Motors, Inc., Case No. 30-2012-00579414, filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County) alleging that the employer underpaid technicians in light of California Wage Order provisions that require an employer to pay at least two times the minimum wage for each hour worked if the employee is required to bring his or her own tools. The complaint was amended in late 2013 to include allegations that the employer failed to pay technicians for non-productive time and/or time spent performing tasks not compensated by the flat-rate compensation system; off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. The amended complaint also alleged that the employer failed to provide technicians accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. Plaintiffs are now seeking relief on behalf of all employees at all DCH Auto Group dealerships in California. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs. These Plaintiffs (and several other former technicians in separate-but-partially-overlapping actions) also seek relief under California’s Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) provisions, which allow private plaintiffs to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California. DCH successfully compelled arbitration based on arbitration agreements between these claimants and the employer, although certain representative claims were excluded and stayed pending arbitration. DCH and these claimants settled their individual claims in arbitration in 2015. In April 2016, DCH and plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the representative claims, although this settlement has not yet been approved by either an independent arbitrator or the California courts as expressly contemplated by the parties and required by applicable law as a condition of the agreed release of claims. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. As a result, we believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements. In August 2014, Ms. Holzer filed a complaint in the Central District of California (Holzer vs. DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., Case No. BC558869) alleging that her employer, an affiliate of DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., failed to provide vehicle finance and sales persons, service advisors, and other clerical and hourly workers accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. The complaint also alleges that the employer failed to pay these employees for off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs. DCH has sought to compel arbitration based on Plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs (and several other employees in separate actions) are seeking relief under California’s PAGA provisions. DCH is defending itself against these claims, and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. As a result, we believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements.

Note 11. Contingencies

Litigation

We are party to numerous legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business. Although we do not anticipate that the resolution of legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business or the proceedings described below will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows, we cannot predict this with certainty.

In Re Lithia Motors Derivative Litigation

On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a Lithia shareholder, filed derivative claims on behalf of Lithia against its Board of Directors, listing Lithia as a nominal defendant. The case, Stein v. DeBoer, et al., Case No. 15CV33696, is pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Marion County. Ms. Stein’s claims relate to the adoption of a transition agreement between Lithia and Sidney B. DeBoer, as disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed September 16, 2015. Ms. Stein alleges that Lithia's directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and wasted corporate assets, when they approved the agreement with Mr. DeBoer. Ms. Stein also alleges a claim against Sidney B. DeBoer, asserting that he has been unjustly enriched by the agreement. Ms. Stein is seeking relief in the amount of damages allegedly sustained by Lithia as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and alleged corporate waste, disgorgement and imposition of a constructive trust on all property and profits Sidney B. DeBoer received as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct, and an award of the costs and disbursements of the lawsuit, including reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The Board and Mr. DeBoer filed Motions to Dismiss the Stein suit on February 26, 2016.

On February 12, 2016, Marty A. Jessos, a Lithia shareholder, also filed derivative claims on behalf of Lithia against its Board of Directors, listing Lithia as a nominal defendant. The case, Jessos v. DeBoer, et al., Case No. 16CV04181, was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. The Jessos suit involves the same subject matter and alleges substantially the same facts, claims, and causes of action as the Stein suit. On March 22, 2016, the Jessos suit was transferred to Marion County Circuit Court. On April 4, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order of Consolidation in the Stein suit to consolidate both Stein and Jessos under the Stein suit, Case No. 15CV33696. On April 4, 2016, the Court signed the consolidation order. The case is now known as In re Lithia Motors Derivative Litigation, Case No. 15CV33696. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on April 15, 2016.

The Board and Mr. DeBoer filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 10, 2016. The Court issued its ruling on the Motions on August 12, 2016. The Court determined that a majority of the Board was independent, but also that Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to withstand the Motions to Dismiss. For that reason, the Court denied the Board's and Mr. DeBoer's Motions. The Board and Mr. DeBoer filed their Answers to the consolidated complaint on October 10, 2016. The parties are now engaged in discovery.

California Wage and Hour Litigations

In June 2012, Mr. Robles and Mr. Laredo brought claims against DCH Tustin Acura (Robles vs. Tustin Motors, Inc., Case No. 30-2012-00579414, filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County) alleging that the employer underpaid technicians in light of California Wage Order provisions that require an employer to pay at least two times the minimum wage for each hour worked if the employee is required to bring his or her own tools. The complaint was amended in late 2013 to include allegations that the employer failed to pay technicians for non-productive time and/or time spent performing tasks not compensated by the flat-rate compensation system; off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. The amended complaint also alleged that the employer failed to provide technicians accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. Plaintiffs are now seeking relief on behalf of all employees at all DCH Auto Group dealerships in California. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs. These Plaintiffs (and several other former technicians in separate-but-partially-overlapping actions) also seek relief under California’s Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) provisions, which allow private plaintiffs to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California. DCH successfully compelled arbitration based on arbitration agreements between these claimants and the employer, although certain representative claims were excluded and stayed pending arbitration.

DCH and these claimants settled their individual claims in arbitration in 2015. In April 2016, DCH and plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the representative claims, although this settlement has not yet been approved by either an independent arbitrator or the California courts as expressly contemplated by the parties and required by applicable law as a condition of the agreed release of claims. DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. As a result, we believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements.

In August 2014, Ms. Holzer filed a complaint in the Central District of California (Holzer vs. DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., Case No. BC558869) alleging that her employer, an affiliate of DCH Auto Group (USA) Inc., failed to provide vehicle finance and sales persons, service advisors, and other clerical and hourly workers accurate and complete wage statements; and statutory meal and rest periods. The complaint also alleges that the employer failed to pay these employees for off-the-clock time worked; and wages due at termination. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs. DCH has sought to compel arbitration based on Plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs (and several other employees in separate actions) are seeking relief under California’s PAGA provisions. DCH is defending itself against these claims, and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited must indemnify Lithia Motors, Inc. for losses related to this claim pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Lithia Motors, Inc. and DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited dated June 14, 2014. As a result, we believe the exposure related to this lawsuit, when considered in relation to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, is immaterial to our financial statements.