Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) 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. The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which the court refused to approve on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class members. Further settlement discussions were not successful, and the litigation is moving forward with the filing deadline for plaintiff’s class certification motion postponed until February 1, 2018. Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company has similar cases pending and fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future. 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. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the “Class Period”). 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 the Company's menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers. 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). On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without prejudice, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017. Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims asserted. In addition, on September 16, 2015, Holdings 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 cooperated fully with the SEC's request. On July 15, 2016, Holdings was informed that the SEC was closing its inquiry as to all parties. On or about November 5, 2015, a purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Holdings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain Holdings officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., under the caption Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al. (Case No. 11676-VCL). The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Holdings and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of Holdings at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The Holdings shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to Holdings, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to Holdings’ Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation. The parties have stipulated to, which the court has ordered, a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., discussed above. A second purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on or about September 23, 2016, under the caption Diep v. Sather, CA 12760-VCL in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Diep action is also purportedly brought on behalf of Holdings, names the same defendants and asserts substantially the same claims on substantially the same alleged facts as does Galustyan. Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the Diep action. On March 17, 2017, the Delaware court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to stay the Diep action. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. No trial date for the Diep action has been set. 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 its 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 its business, consolidated 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 through the end of 2024. At September 27, 2017, the Company’s total estimated commitment to purchase chicken was $11.3 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 five lease agreements. These leases have various terms, the latest of which expires in 2036. As of September 27, 2017, the potential amount of undiscounted payments the Company could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was $2.9 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at the Company’s estimated pre-tax cost of debt at September 27, 2017 was $2.5 million. 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 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 officers.

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, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) 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. The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which the court refused to approve on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class members. Further settlement discussions were not successful, and the litigation is moving forward with the filing deadline for plaintiff’s class certification motion postponed until February 1, 2018. Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company has similar cases pending and fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future.

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. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the “Class Period”). 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 the Company's menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers. 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).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without prejudice, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017. Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims asserted.

In addition, on September 16, 2015, Holdings 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 cooperated fully with the SEC's request. On July 15, 2016, Holdings was informed that the SEC was closing its inquiry as to all parties.

On or about November 5, 2015, a purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Holdings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain Holdings officers, directors and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., under the caption Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al. (Case No. 11676-VCL). The derivative complaint alleges that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Holdings and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of Holdings at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015. The Holdings shareholder’s requested remedies include an award of compensatory damages to Holdings, as well as a court order to improve corporate governance by putting forward for stockholder vote certain resolutions for amendments to Holdings’ Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation. The parties have stipulated to, which the court has ordered, a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., discussed above. A second purported Holdings shareholder filed a derivative complaint on or about September 23, 2016, under the caption Diep v. Sather, CA 12760-VCL in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Diep action is also purportedly brought on behalf of Holdings, names the same defendants and asserts substantially the same claims on substantially the same alleged facts as does Galustyan. Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the Diep action.

On March 17, 2017, the Delaware court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to stay the Diep action. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. No trial date for the Diep action has been set.

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 its 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 its business, consolidated 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 through the end of 2024.

At September 27, 2017, the Company’s total estimated commitment to purchase chicken was $11.3 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 five lease agreements. These leases have various terms, the latest of which expires in 2036. As of September 27, 2017, the potential amount of undiscounted payments the Company could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was $2.9 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at the Company’s estimated pre-tax cost of debt at September 27, 2017 was $2.5 million. 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 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 officers.