Lawsuits	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Notes to Financial Statements
Lawsuits	Note 6 - The Company is a Defendant in a lawsuit styled Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et al v. Noble Roman’s, Inc. et al, filed in Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana in June 2008. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding the franchises. As relief, the Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages in addition to court costs and/or prejudgment interest. The Court issued an Order dated December 23, 2010 granting summary judgment in favor of the Company against all of the Plaintiffs on their fraud claims. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud against the Company and certain of its officers were determined to be without merit. The Company’s counterclaims against the Plaintiffs for breach of contract and other related claims remain pending. The Complaint was originally filed against the Company and certain of its officers and certain institutional lenders. The Plaintiffs are former franchisees of the Company’s traditional location venue. Initially there were approximately 14 groups of franchisee-Plaintiffs. Since the inception of the lawsuit, the Court has dismissed the claims against the institutional lenders. In addition, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company, another group settled by paying a fee to the Company in exchange for the Company dismissing its counterclaim against that Plaintiff and the Court held another group of franchisee-Plaintiffs in contempt and dismissed its claims with prejudice. The Company filed counterclaims for damages for breach of contract against all of the Plaintiffs in the aggregate approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorney’s fees, interest, cost of collection and punitive damages in certain instances. The Company intends to prosecute the counterclaims and obtain and execute on judgments against the Defendants. In addition to the above actual fraud claims, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs asserted a separate claim under the Indiana Franchise Act. The Court’s December 23, 2010 Order denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to the Indiana Franchise Act claim finding the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and did not render any opinion on the merits of that claim. The Company denies liability on this claim and will continue to vigorously prosecute its defenses against this claim. The Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court asking it to correct errors and to reconsider the Order for summary judgment. The motion was deemed denied on April 25, 2011. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal expired on May 25, 2011 and none was filed. On June 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its Order of December 23, 2010 making it an “Interlocutory” order instead of a “Final” order. The Company filed its response opposing that motion. However, on June 8, 2011 Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals. On July 14, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was filed after the deadline of May 25, 2011 for filing of an appeal. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Also, on July 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to reset the hearing on the motion to reconsider the order of December 23, 2010. The Company filed a motion opposing the voluntary withdrawal of appeal in the Indiana Court of Appeals asking the Court to rule on the Company’s motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. On August 18, 2011 the Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the Plaintiffs’ appeal with prejudice. Therefore, the Company filed a motion in the trial court asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ July 29, 2011 motion as moot. On October 27, 2011, the Court entered an Order dismissing all of the July 29, 2011 motion as moot, except for allegations of misconduct by an adverse party. That allegation is set for hearing on November 15, 2011. On September 21, 2011, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment as to liability against all remaining Plaintiffs on the Company’s counterclaims. Plaintiffs’ responses to those motions were due on November 2, 2011, however, Plaintiffs requested a two-day extension until November 4, 2011. Plaintiff’s actually filed their response on November 7, 2011. After reviewing the response, the Company will file a reply and the Court has set a hearing on those motions for December 6, 2011.

Lawsuits

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Note 6 - The Company is a Defendant in a lawsuit styled Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et al v. Noble Roman’s, Inc. et al, filed in Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana in June 2008. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding the franchises. As relief, the Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages in addition to court costs and/or prejudgment interest. The Court issued an Order dated December 23, 2010 granting summary judgment in favor of the Company against all of the Plaintiffs on their fraud claims. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud against the Company and certain of its officers were determined to be without merit. The Company’s counterclaims against the Plaintiffs for breach of contract and other related claims remain pending.

The Complaint was originally filed against the Company and certain of its officers and certain institutional lenders. The Plaintiffs are former franchisees of the Company’s traditional location venue. Initially there were approximately 14 groups of franchisee-Plaintiffs. Since the inception of the lawsuit, the Court has dismissed the claims against the institutional lenders. In addition, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company, another group settled by paying a fee to the Company in exchange for the Company dismissing its counterclaim against that Plaintiff and the Court held another group of franchisee-Plaintiffs in contempt and dismissed its claims with prejudice.

The Company filed counterclaims for damages for breach of contract against all of the Plaintiffs in the aggregate approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorney’s fees, interest, cost of collection and punitive damages in certain instances. The Company intends to prosecute the counterclaims and obtain and execute on judgments against the Defendants.

In addition to the above actual fraud claims, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs asserted a separate claim under the Indiana Franchise Act. The Court’s December 23, 2010 Order denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to the Indiana Franchise Act claim finding the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and did not render any opinion on the merits of that claim. The Company denies liability on this claim and will continue to vigorously prosecute its defenses against this claim.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court asking it to correct errors and to reconsider the Order for summary judgment. The motion was deemed denied on April 25, 2011. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal expired on May 25, 2011 and none was filed.

On June 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its Order of December 23, 2010 making it an “Interlocutory” order instead of a “Final” order. The Company filed its response opposing that motion. However, on June 8, 2011 Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals. On July 14, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was filed after the deadline of May 25, 2011 for filing of an appeal. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Indiana Court of Appeals to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Also, on July 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to reset the hearing on the motion to reconsider the order of December 23, 2010. The Company filed a motion opposing the voluntary withdrawal of appeal in the Indiana Court of Appeals asking the Court to rule on the Company’s motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. On August 18, 2011 the Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the Plaintiffs’ appeal with prejudice. Therefore, the Company filed a motion in the trial court asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ July 29, 2011 motion as moot. On October 27, 2011, the Court entered an Order dismissing all of the July 29, 2011 motion as moot, except for allegations of misconduct by an adverse party. That allegation is set for hearing on November 15, 2011.

On September 21, 2011, the Company filed motions for partial summary judgment as to liability against all remaining Plaintiffs on the Company’s counterclaims. Plaintiffs’ responses to those motions were due on November 2, 2011, however, Plaintiffs requested a two-day extension until November 4, 2011. Plaintiff’s actually filed their response on November 7, 2011. After reviewing the response, the Company will file a reply and the Court has set a hearing on those motions for December 6, 2011.