Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2015
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, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the “Ford Litigation”). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed during the period January 27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to California state court. The parties have exchanged formal discovery. The Company’s investigation is ongoing. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company in California and across the United States 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 September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment of up to $1,750,000 (a substantial portion of which would be covered by the Company’s insurance carrier). On January 16, 2015, the parties executed a written settlement agreement, which will be submitted to the Court for approval. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. We currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees of the Company in the state of New York during the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the putative class of employees; the Company filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015. As of the date of this filing, the Court has not ruled on plaintiff’s motion. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the “Sinohui Litigation”), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges current and former California General Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state court. On February 26, 2015, the Court overruled the plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Company’s investigation is ongoing. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. 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 in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, 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. The first purported class action, styled Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the “Coyne Action”), was filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the “Solak Action”), was filed on January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the “Dixon Action”), 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 fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Frank, et al. (the “LMPERS Action”), was filed on January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred to as 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 its 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 the transactions, damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the “Coyne Amended Complaint”), and 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 incorporated all of the allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in further violation of the Board’s fiduciary duties, and requested an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process. On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated into one action. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. The Company believes the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. 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. The Appraisal Petitioners seek appraisal of $750,000 shares of common stock. The Company 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 would commence in the fall of 2014 and would substantially be completed by May 2015. Following discovery, the scheduling order contemplates dispositive motion practice, followed thereafter, potentially, by a trial on the merits of the Appraisal Petitioners’ claims. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. 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, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the “Ford Litigation”). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed during the period January 27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to California state court. The parties have exchanged formal discovery. The Company’s investigation is ongoing. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company in California and across the United States 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 September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company’s settlement payment of up to $1,750,000 (a substantial portion of which would be covered by the Company’s insurance carrier). On January 16, 2015, the parties executed a written settlement agreement, which will be submitted to the Court for approval. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. We currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees of the Company in the state of New York during the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the putative class of employees; the Company filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015. As of the date of this filing, the Court has not ruled on plaintiff’s motion. We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the “Sinohui Litigation”), claiming to represent other

similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges current and former California General Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state court. On February 26, 2015, the Court overruled the plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Company’s investigation is ongoing. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

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 in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, 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. The first purported class action, styled Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the “Coyne Action”), was filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the “Solak Action”), was filed on January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the “Dixon Action”), 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 fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Frank, et al. (the “LMPERS Action”), was filed on January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred to as 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 its 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 the transactions, damages, attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the “Coyne Amended Complaint”), and 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 incorporated all of the allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in further violation of the Board’s fiduciary duties, and requested an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated into one action. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. The Company believes the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

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. The Appraisal Petitioners seek appraisal of $750,000 shares of common stock. The Company 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 would commence in the fall of 2014 and would substantially be completed by May 2015. Following discovery, the scheduling order contemplates dispositive motion practice, followed thereafter, potentially, by a trial on the merits of the Appraisal Petitioners’ claims. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

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.