Litigation and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Litigation and Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including but not limited to, personal injury claims, landlord-tenant disputes, employment and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. With respect to certain matters described herein, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss to be approximately $1.5 million. Under ASC Topic 450, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Our theatres must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) to the extent that such properties are “public accommodations” and/or “commercial facilities” as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires that public accommodations “reasonably accommodate” individuals with disabilities and that new construction or alterations made to “commercial facilities” conform to accessibility guidelines unless “structurally impracticable” for new construction or technically infeasible for alterations. Non-compliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants and additional capital expenditures to remedy such non-compliance. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all current applicable regulations relating to accommodations for the disabled. The Company intends to comply with future regulations in this regard and except as set forth above, does not currently anticipate that compliance will require the Company to expend substantial funds. In addition, from time to time, the Company receives letters from the state officials in states where we operate theatres regarding investigation into the accessibility of our theatres to persons with visual impairments or that are deaf or hard of hearing. On July 20, 2010, the DOJ issued Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the provision of closed captioning and descriptive audio within the theatre environment. Significantly, this is the first time the DOJ has stated that open captioning may not be required by the ADA. However, by so stating, the DOJ has implied that closed captioning may be required. The Company believes it provides the members of the visually and hearing impaired communities with reasonable access to the movie-going experience but has announced its intention to deploy new digital captioning and descriptive video systems during 2012 and 2013 that should meet all such potential requirements or expectations of any federal, state or individual concerns. The Company’s theatre operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws governing such matters as wages, working conditions, citizenship and health and sanitation and environmental protection requirements. On October 9, 2012, staff at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (the “Regional Board”) notified the Company, that the Regional Board is contemplating issuing a cleanup and abatement order to the Company with respect to a property in Santa Clara, California that the Company owned and then leased during the 1960s and 1970s. According to the Regional Board, the property in question has been contaminated by dry cleaning facilities that operated at the property in question from 1961 until 1996. The Regional Board is also contemplating issuing the order to the current property owner, who has been conducting site investigation and remediation activities at the site for several years. While the Company intends to vigorously defend these matters, we cannot yet predict the outcome or the magnitude of any clean-up costs. We believe that we are, and were during the period in question described in this paragraph, in compliance with such applicable laws and regulations.

Litigation and Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including but not limited to, personal injury claims, landlord-tenant disputes, employment and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.

With respect to certain matters described herein, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss to be approximately $1.5 million. Under ASC Topic 450, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight.

Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Our theatres must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) to the extent that such properties are “public accommodations” and/or “commercial facilities” as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires that public accommodations “reasonably accommodate” individuals with disabilities and that new construction or alterations made to “commercial facilities” conform to accessibility guidelines unless “structurally impracticable” for new construction or technically infeasible for alterations. Non-compliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants and additional capital expenditures to remedy such non-compliance.

The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all current applicable regulations relating to accommodations for the disabled. The Company intends to comply with future regulations in this regard and except as set forth above, does not currently anticipate that compliance will require the Company to expend substantial funds.

In addition, from time to time, the Company receives letters from the state officials in states where we operate theatres regarding investigation into the accessibility of our theatres to persons with visual impairments or that are deaf or hard of hearing. On July 20, 2010, the DOJ issued Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the provision of closed captioning and descriptive audio within the theatre environment. Significantly, this is the first time the DOJ has stated that open captioning may not be required by the ADA. However, by so stating, the DOJ has implied that closed captioning may be required. The Company believes it provides the members of the visually and hearing impaired communities with reasonable access to the movie-going experience but has announced its intention to deploy new digital captioning and descriptive video systems during 2012 and 2013 that should meet all such potential requirements or expectations of any federal, state or individual concerns.

The Company’s theatre operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws governing such matters as wages, working conditions, citizenship and health and sanitation and environmental protection requirements. On October 9, 2012, staff at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (the “Regional Board”) notified the Company, that the Regional Board is contemplating issuing a cleanup and abatement order to the Company with respect to a property in Santa Clara, California that the Company owned and then leased during the 1960s and 1970s. According to the Regional Board, the property in question has been contaminated by dry cleaning facilities that operated at the property in question from 1961 until 1996. The Regional Board is also contemplating issuing the order to the current property owner, who has been conducting site investigation and remediation activities at the site for several years. While the Company intends to vigorously defend these matters, we cannot yet predict the outcome or the magnitude of any clean-up costs. We believe that we are, and were during the period in question described in this paragraph, in compliance with such applicable laws and regulations.