Commitments and Contingencies | Operating lease commitments The Company leases facilities and various office equipment under non-cancelable operating leases which expire through December 2025 . Lease terms for its Company-owned stores are generally for five years with renewal options and generally require the Company to pay a proportionate share of real estate taxes, insurance, common area maintenance, and other operating costs. The Company has entered into operating leases that it has subleased to two franchised stores. These operating leases have minimum base rent terms, contingent rent terms if individual franchised store sales exceed certain levels and have terms expiring on various dates from May 2020 to August 2020 . Lease guarantees The Company is the guarantor for operating leases of 21 franchised stores that have terms expiring on various dates from January 2018 to November 2021 . The obligations from these leases will generally continue to decrease over time as the leases expire. The applicable franchise owners continue to have primary liability for these operating leases. As of October 2, 2017 , the Company does not believe it is probable it would be required to perform under the outstanding guarantees. Legal proceedings Except as set forth below, there have been no material developments in the legal proceedings described in Part I, Item 3, of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2017. The Company currently is subject to litigation with a group of its franchise owners. In January 2014, six franchise owner groups claimed that the Company misrepresented its sales volumes, made false representations to them and charged excess advertising fees, among other things. The Company engaged in mediation with these franchise owners, which is required under the terms of their franchise agreements, in order to address and resolve their claims, but was unable to reach a settlement agreement. On April 4, 2014, a total of 12 franchise owner groups, including those franchise owners that previously made the allegations described above, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington, making essentially the same allegations for violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Based on motions filed by the Company in that lawsuit, the court ruled on July 9, 2014, that certain of the plaintiffs’ claims under the anti-fraud and nondisclosure provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act should be dismissed and that certain other claims in the case would need to be more specifically alleged. The court also ruled that the six franchise owner groups who had not mediated with the Company prior to filing the lawsuit must mediate with the Company in good faith, and that their claims shall be stayed until they have done so. On June 18, 2014, an additional 16 franchise owner groups, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs described above, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court in Clark County, Washington making essentially the same allegations as made in the lawsuit described above and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. The court consolidated the two lawsuits into a single case and ordered that the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, none of whom had mediated with the Company prior to filing the lawsuit, must do so, and that their claims be stayed until they have completed mediating with the Company in good faith. In October 2014, the Company engaged in mediation with the 22 franchise owner groups who had not previously done so. As a result of that mediation and other efforts, the Company reached resolution with 13 of the franchise owner groups involved in the consolidated lawsuits, and their claims have either been dismissed or dismissal is pending. In February 2015, the remaining franchise owner groups in the consolidated lawsuits filed an amended complaint, removing some claims, amending some claims, adding claims and naming some of the Company's former and current franchise sales staff as additional individual defendants. In September 2016, the remaining 15 franchise owner groups in the consolidated lawsuits filed an amended complaint to add a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act based on substantially the same allegations as the prior claims, to re-plead claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act that had previously been dismissed, and to dismiss Dan Harmon as a defendant. In June 2017, the Company, members of its board of directors and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment. A hearing on the summary judgment motions was held on October 13, 2017. In July 2017, the Company engaged in mediation with the remaining 15 franchise owner groups in the consolidated lawsuits. As a result of that mediation and other efforts, the Company reached resolution with five of the remaining franchise owner groups, and their claims have either been dismissed or dismissal is pending. The Company continues to believe the allegations in this litigation lack merit and, for those plaintiffs with whom the Company is unable to reach resolution, it will continue to vigorously defend its interests, including by asserting a number of affirmative defenses and, where appropriate, counterclaims. The Company provides no assurance that it will be successful in its defense of these lawsuits; however, it does not currently expect the cost of resolving them to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. |