Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies: Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are involved in various inquiries, investigations, claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business. These matters typically involve claims from customers, employees or other third parties involved in operational issues common to the retail, restaurant and entertainment industries. Such matters typically represent actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, employee benefits, personal injuries and other matters. A number of such claims may exist at any given time and there are currently a number of claims and legal proceedings pending against us. In the opinion of our management, after consultation with legal counsel, the amount of liability with respect to claims or proceedings currently pending against us is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Employment-Related Litigation: On January 27, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, entitled Franchesca Ford v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese’s (the "Ford Litigation"), was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Cause Number CGC 14-536992. The Company received service of process on February 26, 2014. The Ford Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford, a former store employee, claiming to represent other similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California from January 27, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages, meal and rest periods, wages due upon termination and waiting time penalties. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On March 27, 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Cause Number 3:14-cv-01420-MEJ. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Ford Litigation to California state court and on July 10, 2014, the motion to remand was denied. The case thus will proceed in federal court. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures but no other formal discovery. The Company's investigation is on-going. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend against it, including the Ford Litigation plaintiff’s efforts to certify a California class action. On March 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, entitled Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's (the "FCRA Litigation"), was filed in U.S. District Court Southern District, California, Case Number 3:14-cv-00677-JLS-JLB. The Company received service of process on March 31, 2014. The FCRA Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez claiming to represent other similarly situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company across the United States and in California from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. On May 21, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Court conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference in the case on June 30, 2014, and a Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on August 13, 2014 and September 23, 2014. The parties reached a settlement in principle at the September 23rd session of the Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference to settle the action on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, along with certain related claims and releases in exchange for a maximum settlement payment of $1,750,000, a substantial portion of which would be covered by the Company's insurance carrier. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with the above claims. In October 2014, the Company was served with a complaint alleging misclassification of certain restaurant managers as exempt employees under federal and New York law. The Company is considering its response. It is too early in the litigation to determine what, if any, potential liability may exist. Litigation Related to the Merger: Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class actions were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which is captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Managemnet VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the "Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions. Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and abetted the Board’s breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions. The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of these transactions, damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper. On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"); furthermore, on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporate all of the allegations in the original complaints and add allegations that the Board approved the Statement which omitted certain material information in violation of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaints further request an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly omitted material information. Additionally, the Solak Amended Complaint adds allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process. On January 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Coyne and Dixon Actions jointly filed a motion in each action for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and the scheduling of a hearing for the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for temporary injunction seeking expedited discovery and a hearing date in anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction. CEC Entertainment, Inc. and the individual defendants filed responses to those motions on January 31, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the plaintiff in the LMPERS Action filed a motion to join the January 28 motion, and the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings in anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the four actions pending in Kansas withdrew their respective motions and determined to pursue a consolidated action for damages after the Tender Offer closed. On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57. Thereafter, the parties engaged in limited discovery. By stipulation of the parties, the Company has no obligation to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints filed in the Coyne, Solak, Dixon or LMPERS Actions until after the plaintiffs serve a consolidated amended complaint, or designate an operative complaint or amended complaint. A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v Frank, et al. Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014 (the "McCullough Action"). On May 21, 2014, the County Court of Dallas County, Texas dismissed the McCullough Action for want of prosecution. On June 10, 2014, Magnetar Global Event Driven Fund Ltd., Spectrum Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., Magnetar Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC, as the purported beneficial owners of shares held as of record by the nominal petitioner Cede & Co., (the "Appraisal Petitioners"), filed an action for statutory appraisal under Kansas state law against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, et al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2:14-cv-02279-RDR-KGS. The Appraisal Petitioners seek appraisal of 750,000 shares of common stock. The Company has answered the complaint and filed a verified list of stockholders, as required under Kansas law. On September 3, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order that contemplates that discovery will commence in the fall of 2014 and will substantially be completed by May 2015. Following discovery, the scheduling order contemplates dispositive motion practice followed, pottentially, by a trial on the merits of the Appraisal Petitioners' claims thereafter. We are currently in settlement negotiations with the Appraisal Petitioners, but no settlement has been reached. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously; however, we are presently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation.

Commitments and Contingencies:

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved in various inquiries, investigations, claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business. These matters typically involve claims from customers, employees or other third parties involved in operational issues common to the retail, restaurant and entertainment industries. Such matters typically represent actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, employee benefits, personal injuries and other matters. A number of such claims may exist at any given time and there are currently a number of claims and legal proceedings pending against us.

In the opinion of our management, after consultation with legal counsel, the amount of liability with respect to claims or proceedings currently pending against us is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Employment-Related Litigation: On January 27, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, entitled Franchesca Ford v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese’s (the "Ford Litigation"), was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, California, Cause Number CGC 14-536992. The Company received service of process on February 26, 2014. The Ford Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford, a former store employee, claiming to represent other similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California from January 27, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages, meal and rest periods, wages due upon termination and waiting time penalties. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On March 27, 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Cause Number 3:14-cv-01420-MEJ. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Ford Litigation to California state court and on July 10, 2014, the motion to remand was denied. The case thus will proceed in federal court. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures but no other formal discovery. The Company's investigation is on-going. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend against it, including the Ford Litigation plaintiff’s efforts to certify a California class action.

On March 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, entitled Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's (the "FCRA Litigation"), was filed in U.S. District Court Southern District, California, Case Number 3:14-cv-00677-JLS-JLB. The Company received service of process on March 31, 2014. The FCRA Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez claiming to represent other similarly situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company across the United States and in California from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. On May 21, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Court conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference in the case on June 30, 2014, and a Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference on August 13, 2014 and September 23, 2014. The parties reached a settlement in principle at the September 23rd session of the Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference to settle the action on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, along with certain related claims and releases in exchange for a maximum settlement payment of $1,750,000, a substantial portion of which would be covered by the Company's insurance carrier.

The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with the above claims.

In October 2014, the Company was served with a complaint alleging misclassification of certain restaurant managers as exempt employees under federal and New York law. The Company is considering its response. It is too early in the litigation to determine what, if any, potential liability may exist.

Litigation Related to the Merger: Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class actions were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which is captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Managemnet VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the "Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and abetted the Board’s breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.

The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of these transactions, damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"); furthermore, on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporate all of the allegations in the original complaints and add allegations that the Board approved the Statement which omitted certain material information in violation of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaints further request an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly omitted material information. Additionally, the Solak Amended Complaint adds allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process.

On January 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Coyne and Dixon Actions jointly filed a motion in each action for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and the scheduling of a hearing for the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for temporary injunction seeking expedited discovery and a hearing date in anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction. CEC Entertainment, Inc. and the individual defendants filed responses to those motions on January 31, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the plaintiff in the LMPERS Action filed a motion to join the January 28 motion, and the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings in anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the four actions pending in Kansas withdrew their respective motions and determined to pursue a consolidated action for damages after the Tender Offer closed.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57. Thereafter, the parties engaged in limited discovery. By stipulation of the parties, the Company has no obligation to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints filed in the Coyne, Solak, Dixon or LMPERS Actions until after the plaintiffs serve a consolidated amended complaint, or designate an operative complaint or amended complaint.

A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v Frank, et al. Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014 (the "McCullough Action"). On May 21, 2014, the County Court of Dallas County, Texas dismissed the McCullough Action for want of prosecution.

On June 10, 2014, Magnetar Global Event Driven Fund Ltd., Spectrum Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., Magnetar Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC, as the purported beneficial owners of shares held as of record by the nominal petitioner Cede & Co., (the "Appraisal Petitioners"), filed an action for statutory appraisal under Kansas state law against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, et al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2:14-cv-02279-RDR-KGS. The Appraisal Petitioners seek appraisal of 750,000 shares of common stock. The Company has answered the complaint and filed a verified list of stockholders, as required under Kansas law. On September 3, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order that contemplates that discovery will commence in the fall of 2014 and will substantially be completed by May 2015. Following discovery, the scheduling order contemplates dispositive motion practice followed, pottentially, by a trial on the merits of the Appraisal Petitioners' claims thereafter. We are currently in settlement negotiations with the Appraisal Petitioners, but no settlement has been reached. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously; however, we are presently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation.