Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff’s requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. While the Company is vigorously defending against this action, including its class certification, the ultimate outcome of the case is presently not determinable as it is in a preliminary phase. Thus, the Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a likely range of damages in the event of an adverse judgment. Any settlement of, or judgment with a negative outcome arising from, this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect. Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. Plaintiff Daniel Turocy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, and Plaintiff Ron Huston, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, each filed separate putative class action complaints, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and, in the Ron Huston case, the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the “Class Period”). In both cases, the named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the “Controlling Shareholder Defendants”). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings’ stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings’ stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted. In addition, on September 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its officers and directors received an informal, non-public inquiry from the SEC requesting voluntary production of documents and information. All parties are cooperating fully with the SEC's request. On or about November 5, 2015, a purported EPL shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain EPL officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C. The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to EPL and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of EPL at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The EPL shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to EPL, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to EPL’s Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation. The Company is also 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 other actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. A significant increase in the number of claims, or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Purchasing Commitments The Company has long-term beverage supply agreements with certain major beverage vendors. Pursuant to the terms of these arrangements, marketing rebates are provided to the Company and its franchisees from the beverage vendors based upon the dollar volume of purchases for system-wide restaurants which will vary according to their demand for beverage syrup and fluctuations in the market rates for beverage syrup. These contracts have terms extending into 2017 with an estimated Company obligation totaling $15.2 million as of September 30, 2015. At September 30, 2015, the Company’s total estimated commitment to purchase chicken was $12.6 million. Contingent Lease Obligations As a result of assigning the Company’s interest in obligations under real estate leases in connection with the sale of Company-operated restaurants to some of the Company’s franchisees, the Company is contingently liable on four lease agreements. These leases have various terms, the latest of which expires in 2022. As of September 30, 2015, the potential amount of undiscounted payments the Company could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was $1,431,000. The present value of these potential payments discounted at the Company’s estimated pre-tax cost of debt at September 30, 2015 was $1,308,000. The Company’s franchisees are primarily liable on the leases. The Company has cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreements in the event of non-payment under the leases. The Company believes that these cross-default provisions reduce the risk that payments will be required to be made under these leases. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements related to these contingent liabilities. Employment Agreements The Company has employment agreements with four of the officers of the Company on an at will basis. These agreements provide for minimum salary levels, possible annual adjustments for cost-of-living changes, and incentive bonuses that are payable under certain business conditions. Indemnification Agreements The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its current directors and executive officers. These agreements require the Company to indemnify these individuals to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law against liabilities that may arise by reason of their service to the Company and to advance expenses incurred as a result of any proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified. The Company also intends to enter into indemnification agreements with future directors and executive officers.

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff’s requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. While the Company is vigorously defending against this action, including its class certification, the ultimate outcome of the case is presently not determinable as it is in a preliminary phase. Thus, the Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a likely range of damages in the event of an adverse judgment. Any settlement of, or judgment with a negative outcome arising from, this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. Plaintiff Daniel Turocy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, and Plaintiff Ron Huston, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, each filed separate putative class action complaints, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and, in the Ron Huston case, the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the “Class Period”). In both cases, the named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the “Controlling Shareholder Defendants”). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings’ stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings’ stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted. In addition, on September 16, 2015, the Company and certain of its officers and directors received an informal, non-public inquiry from the SEC requesting voluntary production of documents and information. All parties are cooperating fully with the SEC's request.

On or about November 5, 2015, a purported EPL shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain EPL officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C. The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to EPL and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of EPL at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The EPL shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to EPL, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to EPL’s Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation.

The Company is also 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 other actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity, or capital resources. A significant increase in the number of claims, or an increase in amounts owing under successful claims, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Purchasing Commitments

The Company has long-term beverage supply agreements with certain major beverage vendors. Pursuant to the terms of these arrangements, marketing rebates are provided to the Company and its franchisees from the beverage vendors based upon the dollar volume of purchases for system-wide restaurants which will vary according to their demand for beverage syrup and fluctuations in the market rates for beverage syrup. These contracts have terms extending into 2017 with an estimated Company obligation totaling $15.2 million as of September 30, 2015.

At September 30, 2015, the Company’s total estimated commitment to purchase chicken was $12.6 million.

Contingent Lease Obligations

As a result of assigning the Company’s interest in obligations under real estate leases in connection with the sale of Company-operated restaurants to some of the Company’s franchisees, the Company is contingently liable on four lease agreements. These leases have various terms, the latest of which expires in 2022. As of September 30, 2015, the potential amount of undiscounted payments the Company could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was $1,431,000. The present value of these potential payments discounted at the Company’s estimated pre-tax cost of debt at September 30, 2015 was $1,308,000. The Company’s franchisees are primarily liable on the leases. The Company has cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreements in the event of non-payment under the leases. The Company believes that these cross-default provisions reduce the risk that payments will be required to be made under these leases. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements related to these contingent liabilities.

Employment Agreements

The Company has employment agreements with four of the officers of the Company on an at will basis. These agreements provide for minimum salary levels, possible annual adjustments for cost-of-living changes, and incentive bonuses that are payable under certain business conditions.

Indemnification Agreements

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its current directors and executive officers. These agreements require the Company to indemnify these individuals to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law against liabilities that may arise by reason of their service to the Company and to advance expenses incurred as a result of any proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified. The Company also intends to enter into indemnification agreements with future directors and executive officers.