Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 03, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	5. Commitments and Contingencies On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2014-00040278). By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior Court. On June 27, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 described below may be related. On May 23, 2017, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without resolution. Subsequent to the plaintiff filing a second amended complaint on July 14, 2017, the parties agreed to resume mediation. The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members. The parties resumed mediation on February 13, 2018 and reached a tentative settlement subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount. On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the State of New York’s minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. 2:15-CV-03117). On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action covering a limited number of the Company’s restaurants in the State of New York. On July 31, 2017, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without resolution. On February 21, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount. On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620). On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference statement at which time we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments. On July 12, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company violated California’s unfair business practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuity amounts on split payment transactions. (Goldman v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. BC668334). On December 1, 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff filed his opposition on December 26, 2017. On March 27, 2018, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to six of the seven causes of action in the complaint. On April 16, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint, and the parties also agreed to a partial stay of the case for 60 days to allow for informal discussions and an informal exchange of information with the purpose of exploring a possible resolution of the case. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments. During the first quarter of fiscal 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued its examination report for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012 in which they disallowed a total of $12.9 million of our §199 Domestic Production Activity Deductions for the subject years. On February 27, 2017, we submitted a Protest Memorandum indicating our disagreement with the disallowance and requesting a review of our case by the Appeals Division of the IRS. Our case is now under the jurisdiction of the Appeals Division, and on August 8, 2017 we held an opening conference with the Appeals Team Case Leader (“ATCL”) in the Los Angeles Appeals office. We had a subsequent discussion with the ATCL to emphasize the merits of our position. We intend to vigorously defend our position and, based on our analysis of the law, regulations and relevant facts, we believe our position will be ultimately sustained if litigation is necessary. Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments. On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, by failing to properly censor consumer credit or debit card information. (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM). On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional lawsuits were filed in California and New York, respectively, alleging similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM. (Tibbits v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 ( E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No 8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)). The Company filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM on March 24, 2017 and similarly filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 on April 7, 2017. On October 16, 2017, the Florida court granted the Company’s motion to transfer Case No. 0:17-cv-60229JEM to California to be consolidated with Case No. 8:17-cv-00357, and the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration thereof. The plaintiff in Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 agreed to transfer its case to California and such matter was subsequently consolidated with Case No 8:17-cv-00357. On April 3, 2018, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without resolution. These lawsuits seek unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary payments. We intend to vigorously defend these actions. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these matters and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments. On February 3, 2017, five present and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Abdelaziz v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL). On February 22, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No. 37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL). The San Diego County Superior Court consolidated Case Nos. 37-2016-00039775-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL. The parties are scheduled to participate in voluntary mediation in the two consolidated cases on June 13, 2018. These lawsuits seek unspecified penalties under the California Private Attorneys’ General Act in addition to other monetary payments. We intend to vigorously defend these actions. Based upon the current status of these matters, we have reserved an immaterial amount. Within the ordinary course of our business, we are subject to private lawsuits, government audits, administrative proceedings and other claims. These matters typically involve claims from customers, staff members and others related to operational and employment issues common to the foodservice industry. A number of these claims may exist at any given time, and some of the claims may be pled as class actions. From time to time, we are also involved in lawsuits with respect to infringements of, or challenges to, our registered trademarks and other intellectual property, both domestically and abroad. We could be affected by adverse publicity and litigation costs resulting from such allegations, regardless of whether they are valid or whether we are legally determined to be liable. At this time, we believe that the amount of reasonably possible losses resulting from final disposition of any pending lawsuits, audits, proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect individually or in the aggregate on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. It is possible, however, that our future results of operations for a particular quarter or fiscal year could be impacted by changes in circumstances relating to lawsuits, audits, proceedings or claims. Legal costs related to such claims are expensed as incurred.

5. Commitments and Contingencies

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2014-00040278). By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior Court. On June 27, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 described below may be related. On May 23, 2017, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without resolution. Subsequent to the plaintiff filing a second amended complaint on July 14, 2017, the parties agreed to resume mediation. The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members. The parties resumed mediation on February 13, 2018 and reached a tentative settlement subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the State of New York’s minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. 2:15-CV-03117). On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action covering a limited number of the Company’s restaurants in the State of New York. On July 31, 2017, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without resolution. On February 21, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620). On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference statement at which time we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On July 12, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company violated California’s unfair business practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuity amounts on split payment transactions. (Goldman v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. BC668334). On December 1, 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff filed his opposition on December 26, 2017. On March 27, 2018, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to six of the seven causes of action in the complaint. On April 16, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint, and the parties also agreed to a partial stay of the case for 60 days to allow for informal discussions and an informal exchange of information with the purpose of exploring a possible resolution of the case. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued its examination report for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012 in which they disallowed a total of $12.9 million of our §199 Domestic Production Activity Deductions for the subject years. On February 27, 2017, we submitted a Protest Memorandum indicating our disagreement with the disallowance and requesting a review of our case by the Appeals Division of the IRS. Our case is now under the jurisdiction of the Appeals Division, and on August 8, 2017 we held an opening conference with the Appeals Team Case Leader (“ATCL”) in the Los Angeles Appeals office. We had a subsequent discussion with the ATCL to emphasize the merits of our position. We intend to vigorously defend our position and, based on our analysis of the law, regulations and relevant facts, we believe our position will be ultimately sustained if litigation is necessary. Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, by failing to properly censor consumer credit or debit card information. (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM). On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional lawsuits were filed in California and New York, respectively, alleging similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM. (Tibbits v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 ( E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No 8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)). The Company filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM on March 24, 2017 and similarly filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 on April 7, 2017. On October 16, 2017, the Florida court granted the Company’s motion to transfer Case No. 0:17-cv-60229JEM to California to be consolidated with Case No. 8:17-cv-00357, and the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration thereof. The plaintiff in Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 agreed to transfer its case to California and such matter was subsequently consolidated with Case No 8:17-cv-00357. On April 3, 2018, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without resolution. These lawsuits seek unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary payments. We intend to vigorously defend these actions. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these matters and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Abdelaziz v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL). On February 22, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No. 37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL). The San Diego County Superior Court consolidated Case Nos. 37-2016-00039775-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL. The parties are scheduled to participate in voluntary mediation in the two consolidated cases on June 13, 2018. These lawsuits seek unspecified penalties under the California Private Attorneys’ General Act in addition to other monetary payments. We intend to vigorously defend these actions. Based upon the current status of these matters, we have reserved an immaterial amount.

Within the ordinary course of our business, we are subject to private lawsuits, government audits, administrative proceedings and other claims. These matters typically involve claims from customers, staff members and others related to operational and employment issues common to the foodservice industry. A number of these claims may exist at any given time, and some of the claims may be pled as class actions. From time to time, we are also involved in lawsuits with respect to infringements of, or challenges to, our registered trademarks and other intellectual property, both domestically and abroad. We could be affected by adverse publicity and litigation costs resulting from such allegations, regardless of whether they are valid or whether we are legally determined to be liable.

At this time, we believe that the amount of reasonably possible losses resulting from final disposition of any pending lawsuits, audits, proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect individually or in the aggregate on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. It is possible, however, that our future results of operations for a particular quarter or fiscal year could be impacted by changes in circumstances relating to lawsuits, audits, proceedings or claims. Legal costs related to such claims are expensed as incurred.