ÿWPCU! …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ B9U>VB)”DC½ AMU*Míw¥dW À` D3 –S6é 0@v~_vÓÝ AO°Æÿ 0DÅ D/ ! B8!˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÒ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¦§U¨ © ª « ¬£­®¯Ó€Úƒç"°(#3|xº((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òDecember€11,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ›Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð7„59„102€(1992).Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€courtððs€pre„trial€order€indicated€that€the€City€filed€a€cross„claim€for€injunctiveÏrelief€against€East€Coast€and€that€this€claim€was€bifurcated.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.R.C.P.€21€(providing€thatÏð ð[a]ny€claim€against€a€party€may€be€severed€and€proceeded€with€separatelyðð);€T.R.C.P.€42.02Ï(providing€that,€in€nonjury€trials,€the€trial€court€may€ð ðorder€a€separate€trial€of€any€one€or€moreÏclaims,€cross„claims,€counterclaims,€or€third„party€claims,€or€issuesðð).Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€47€U.S.C.A.€ðððð521„„561€(West€1991€&€Supp.€1997).Ì 'ÿÿdxd ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSee€supraó óóó€note€2.Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlternatively,€in€seeking€declaratory€relief,€Robin€Media€was€required€to€name€the€City€asÏa€party€to€this€action€if€the€proceeding€involved€the€validity€of€a€City€ordinance€or€franchise.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏT.C.A.€ðð29„14„107(b)€(1980).€€In€this€regard,€Robin€Mediaððs€complaint€did€not€challenge€theÏvalidity€of€the€cable€franchise€under€which€East€Coast€and€Seaton€were€providing€cable€televisionÏservices.€€Rather,€Robin€Mediaððs€complaint€alleged€that,€in€providing€such€services,€East€CoastÏand€Seaton€were€exceeding€the€scope€of€Seatonððs€franchise.€€We€note,€however,€that€at€trial€SeatonÏraised€an€issue€as€to€the€validity€of€the€cable€franchise€under€which€Robin€Media€was€operating.€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÓ` Ü` p”XÓò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€$&#A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òROBIN€MEDIA€GROUP,€INC.ó ó,à à)à àSevier€County€Chancery€CourtÌò òA€Tennessee€Corporation€d/b/a€Eastó óà à)à àNo.€95„9„312Ìò òTennessee€Cablevisionó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€03A01„9704„CH„00146Ìà à)Ìò òKENNETH€M.€SEATONó ó,à à)Ìò òEAST€COAST€CABLEVISION,€andó óà à)Ìò òTHE€CITY€OF€PIGEON€FORGEó ó,à à)Ìò òTENNESSEEó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Sevier€County€at€Sevierville.Ìò òHonorable€Chester€S.€Rainwater,€Jr.,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òHugh€B.€Bright,€Jr.ó ó,Ìò òNorman€G.€Templetonó ó,ÌWOOLF,€McCLANE,€BRIGHT,€ALLEN€&€CARPENTER,€Knoxville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌò òC.€Dan€Scottó ó,Ìò òKatherine€M.€Hamiltonó ó,ÌSCOTT€&€ASSOCIATES,€Sevierville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€Kenneth€M.€Seaton.ÌÌò òDouglas€S.€Yatesó ó,€BRABSON,€YATES€&€HAMILTON,€Sevierville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€East€Coast€Cablevision.ÌÌò òNorma€McGee€Ogleó ó,€OGLE,€WYNN€&€RADER,€Sevierville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€City€of€Pigeon€Forge,€Tennessee.ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òWILLIAMS,€œSr.›€J.ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓ›œà àPlaintiff€Robin€Media€Group,€Inc.,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€dismissing€itsÏclaims€for€declaratory€and€injunctive€relief€against€Defendants/Appellees€KennethM.€Seaton,€EastÏCoast€Television,€and€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge.€€We€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment€based,€ò òòòinter€aliaó óóó,€on€East€Coastððs€concession€that€Robin€Media€had€standing€toÏmaintain€this€action.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòI.€€Factual€and€Procedural€Historyóóó óÌÌà àRobin€Media€has€a€non„exclusive€franchise€to€construct,€operate,€and€maintain€aÏcableÔ'  Ô€television€system€within€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge.€€Seaton€also€has€a€non„exclusive€franchiseÏto€construct,€operate,€and€maintain€a€cable€television€system€in€Pigeon€Forge;€however,€SeatonððsÏfranchise€authorizes€him€to€provide€cable€television€services€only€to€those€properties€in€whichÏSeaton€owns€more€than€a€fifty„one€percent(51%)€interest.€€Both€franchises€were€granted€by€theÏCity€of€Pigeon€Forge.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àAfter€obtaining€his€franchise,€Seaton€contracted€with€East€Coast€to€construct,Ïoperate,€and€maintain€a€cable€television€system€which€would€provide€services€to€nine€or€ten€hotelsÏowned€by€Seaton€in€Pigeon€Forge.€€Under€this€arrangement,€Seaton€paid€an€annual€programmingÏfee€to€East€Coast.€€When€East€Coast€built€the€cable€system,€it€installed€connection€taps€in€front€ofÏevery€hotel€in€Pigeon€Forge,€not€just€Seatonððs€hotels.€€East€Coast€also€ran€drop€lines€to€many€non„Seaton€hotels.€€Randy€Coley,€the€owner€of€East€Coast,€explained€that€he€installed€the€additionalÏtaps€and€drop€lines€for€ð ðfuture€useðð€because€he€was€hopeful€that€Seatonððs€franchise€would€beÍexpanded€at€some€future€date.€€In€that€event,€it€would€be€a€very€simple€matter€for€East€Coast€toÏexpand€the€services€being€provided€by€merely€activating€the€tap€at€each€hotel.ÌÌà àIn€May€1993,€EarleneM.€Teaster,€the€Cityððs€manager,€learned€that€East€Coast€wasÏoffering€cable€television€services€to€non„Seaton€hotels€in€Pigeon€Forge.€€Teaster€called€RandyÏColey€of€East€Coast€and€asked€him€to€cease€using€Seatonððs€franchise€to€provide€cable€televisionÏservices€to€non„Seaton€customers.€€According€to€Teaster,€Coley€informed€her€that€he€believed€EastÏCoast€had€the€right€to€provide€cable€television€services€to€non„Seaton€hotels€under€SeatonððsÏfranchise.€€A€few€days€after€this€conversation,€Seaton€called€Teaster€and€informed€her€that€he€alsoÏhad€asked€Coley€to€cease€providing€services€to€non„Seaton€properties.ÌÌà àIn€May€1994,€representatives€of€Robin€Media€complained€to€Teaster€that€East€CoastÏwas€providing€cable€television€services€to€at€least€six€non„Seaton€hotels€in€Pigeon€Forge,€and€theyÏasked€Teaster€to€investigate€the€matter.€€In€response€to€Robin€Mediaððs€request,€Teaster€wrote€aÏletter€to€Coley€again€asking€him€to€cease€providing€cable€television€services€to€non„Seaton€hotels.€ÏColey€did€not€response€to€Teasterððs€letter.ÌÌà àIn€October€1994,€MelvinL.€Hill,€an€employee€of€the€Cityððs€Building€and€PlanningÏDepartment,€met€with€Seaton.€€During€this€meeting,€Seaton€indicated€that€he€was€not€aware€thatÏEast€Coast€had€run€drop€lines€into€non„Seaton€hotels.€€Seaton€called€Randy€Coley€from€HillððsÏoffice€and€instructed€Coley€to€disconnect€any€non„Seaton€properties€from€the€cable€televisionÏsystem.€€Coley€agreed€to€disconnect€the€non„Seaton€hotels€from€the€system.€€Shortly€after€theÏmeeting€in€Hillððs€office,€Seaton€wrote€a€letter€to€City€Manager€Teaster€inquiring€about€expandingÏhis€franchise.€€ÌÌà àEast€Coast€did€not€discontinue€providing€cable€television€services€to€the€non„SeatonÏhotels€until€August€1995.€€The€following€month,€Robin€Media€filed€this€lawsuit€against€Seaton,ÍEast€Coast,€and€the€City,€seeking€declaratory€and€injunctive€relief€and€damages.€€Prior€to€trial,ÏRobin€Mediaððs€damages€claims€were€dismissed.€€Accordingly,€the€only€issues€to€be€adjudicated€atÏtrial€involved€Robin€Mediaððs€claims€for€declaratory€and€injunctive€relief.× ƒ( ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€it€was€undisputed€that€East€Coast€entered€into€contracts€with€various€non„Seaton€hotels€which€purported€to€provide€the€hotels€with€cable€television€services.€€East€Coast€tookÏthe€position,€however,€that€its€provision€of€services€neither€required€a€cable€franchise€nor€violatedÏSeatonððs€existing€cable€franchise.€€East€Coastððs€owner,€Randy€Coley,€testified€that€theÏprogramming€services€provided€to€the€non„Seaton€hotels€were€not€transmitted€by€way€of€the€cableÏtelevision€system€but,€rather,€were€transmitted€by€an€infrared€laser€system€that€Coley€had€installedÏin€addition€to€the€cable€system.€€Coley€acknowledged€that,€in€constructing€the€cable€system,€heÏinstalled€taps€in€front€of€every€hotel€in€Pigeon€Forge€and€ran€drop€lines€to€a€majority€of€the€hotels.€ÏColey€insisted,€however,€that€these€taps€and€drop€lines€were€never€activated.€€According€to€Coley,ÏEast€Coast€installed€a€terminator€at€each€tap€to€terminate€its€cable€signal.€€Coley€denied€telling€CityÏManager€Teaster€that€he€believed€East€Coast€had€the€right€to€provide€cable€television€services€toÏnon„Seaton€hotels€under€Seatonððs€franchise.ÌÌà àColeyððs€testimony€was€contradicted€by€two€Robin€Media€employees,€one€of€whomÏtestified€that,€when€he€reconnected€the€Robin€Media€cable€system€to€the€non„Seaton€hotels€inÏAugust€1995,€he€measured€a€signal€being€transmitted€on€the€Seaton€system€at€each€tap€or€drop€line.€ÏDuring€this€process,€the€employee€did€not€observe€any€terminators€on€the€Seaton€system.€€TheÏother€employee€testified€that,€when€Robin€Media€employees€disconnected€the€drop€lines€from€theÏtaps€on€the€Seaton€system,€the€motel€television€screens€ð ðwent€blank.ðð€€When€they€reconnected€theÏdrop€lines€to€Robin€Mediaððs€cable€system,€the€television€pictures€returned.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€Robin€Mediaððs€presentation€of€proof,€the€trial€court€dismissedÏRobin€Mediaððs€claims€against€Kenneth€Seaton€based€on€the€courtððs€finding€that€Robin€Media€failedÏto€carry€its€burden€of€proving€that€Seaton€authorized,€directed,€participated€in,€or€had€directÏknowledge€of€East€Coastððs€alleged€violations€of€Seatonððs€franchise.€€The€trial€court€further€foundÏthat,€when€the€violations€were€called€to€Seatonððs€attention,€Seaton€immediately€instructed€EastÏCoast€to€cease€and€desist€any€such€violations.ÌÌà àAt€the€trialððs€conclusion,€the€trial€court€also€entered€an€order€dismissing€RobinÏMediaððs€claims€against€East€Coast€and€the€City.€€In€support€of€its€dismissal,€the€trial€court€ruledÏthat,€because€Robin€Mediaððs€cable€franchise€was€non„exclusive,€Robin€Media€lacked€standing€toÏmaintain€this€action€against€East€Coast€and€the€City.€€In€support€of€its€dismissal€as€to€the€City,€theÏtrial€court€additionally€ruled€that€there€was€ð ðno€allegation€here€for€the€Court€to€find€that€the€City€ofÏPigeon€Forge€has€done€anything€or€failed€to€do€anything€that€the€Plaintiff€has€sought€from€them;Ïand€therefore,€thereððs€no€justiciable€issue€for€the€Court€to€determine€as€against€the€City€of€PigeonÏForge.ðð€€Finding€no€just€reason€for€delay,€the€trial€court€directed€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment€withÏrespect€to€Robin€Mediaððs€claims€against€the€Defendants.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€T.R.C.P.€54.02.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Robin€Media€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)in€dismissing€RobinÏMediaððs€claims€based€on€the€courtððs€ruling€that€Robin€Media€lacked€standing€to€bring€this€action,Ïand€(2)in€dismissing€Robin€Mediaððs€claims€against€Seaton€based€on€the€courtððs€finding€that€SeatonÏdid€not€authorize,€direct,€or€participate€in€any€alleged€violations€of€Seatonððs€franchise.€€ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòII.€€Robin€Mediaððs€Claims€Against€East€Coast€Televisionó óóóÌÌà àOn€appeal,€East€Coast€properly€concedes€that€Robin€Media€had€standing€to€bringÏthisÔ'  Ô€action.€€Contrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€the€non„exclusive€nature€of€Robin€Mediaððs€cableÍfranchise€did€not€preclude€it€from€maintaining€a€suit€for€injunctive€relief€against€Defendants€whoÏallegedly€were€providing€cable€television€services€without€the€authority€of€a€franchise.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏò òòòTennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Co.v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€91€S.W.2d€566,€568€(Tenn.€1936)Ï(holding€that€electric€company€with€non„exclusive€franchise€was€entitled€to€maintain€suit€forÏinjunctive€relief€against€threatened€or€actual€injury€to€property€right€through€illegal€competition);Ïò òòòMemphis€St.€Ry.€Co.v.€Rapid€Transit€Co.ó óóó,€179€S.W.€635,€638„39€(Tenn.€1915)Ï(holding€that€jitney€operator€with€non„exclusive€franchise€had€property€right€which€entitled€it€toÏmaintain€suit€to€enjoin€activities€of€other€businesses€which€were€operating€jitneys€without€authorityÏof€city€franchise);€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòFrostv.€Corporation€Commððnó óóó,€278€U.S.€515,€521€(1929)Ï(holding€that€business€with€non„exclusive€franchise€to€operate€cotton€gin€had€standing€to€seek€toÏenjoin€activities€of€entity€which€operated€gin€without€obtaining€franchise).€€Our€conclusion€thatÏRobin€Media€had€standing€to€bring€this€action€compels€this€court€to€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€in€favor€of€East€Coast€and€to€remand€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€central€issues€inÏthis€case,€ò òòòi.e.ó óóó€the€legality€of€East€Coastððs€activities€and€the€propriety€of€Robin€Mediaððs€request€forÏinjunctive€relief€against€East€Coast.ÌÌà àAlthough€East€Coast€concedes€that€Robin€Media€had€standing€to€bring€this€action,ÏEast€Coast€contends€that€this€court€should€decline€to€review€Robin€Mediaððs€appeal€on€grounds€ofÏmootness.€€Specifically,€East€Coast€contends€that€this€appeal€is€moot€because,€even€if€East€CoastÏwas€providing€cable€television€services€in€violation€of€Seatonððs€franchise€or€without€the€authorityÏof€a€franchise,€East€Coast€voluntarily€discontinued€these€activities€in€August€1995.€€ÌÌà àThe€mere€voluntary€cessation€of€allegedly€illegal€conduct€will€not€moot€aÏcontroversy€such€as€to€prevent€courts€from€determining€the€legality€of€the€practice.€€ò òòòCity€ofÏMesquitev.€Aladdinððs€Castle,€Inc.ó óóó,€455€U.S.€283,€289€(1982);€ò òòòUnited€Statesv.ÏConcentrated€Phosphate€Export€Assððnó óóó,€393€U.S.€199,€203€(1968);€ò òòòUnited€Statesv.ÏW.T.€Grant€Co.ó óóó,€345€U.S.€629,€632€(1953);€ò òòòRagsdalev.€Turnockó óóó,€841€F.2d€1358,€1364Í(7th€Cir.€1988),€ò òòòappeal€dismissedó óóó,€503€U.S.€916€(1992);€ò òòòDonovanv.€Cunninghamó óóó,€716ÏF.2d€1455,€1461€(5th€Cir.€1983),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€467€U.S.€1251€(1984).€€As€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€has€explained,ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€test€for€mootness€in€cases€such€as€this€is€a€stringent€one.€ÏMere€voluntary€cessation€of€allegedly€illegal€conduct€does€not€mootÏa€case;€if€it€did,€the€courts€would€be€compelled€to€leave€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant...€free€to€return€to€his€old€ways.ððÌÌÓÓÌò òòòUnited€Statesv.€Concentrated€Phosphate€Export€Assððnó óóó,€393€U.S.€at€203„04€(quotingÏò òòòUnited€Statesv.€W.T.€Grant€Co.ó óóó,€345€U.S.€at€632).€€In€such€cases,€the€defendant€bears€aÏð ðheavy€burdenðð€of€persuading€the€court€that€a€controversy€is€moot€by€showing€that€ð ðthere€is€noÏreasonable€expectation€that€the€putatively€illegal€conduct€will€be€repeated,€and€[that]€there€are€noÏremaining€effects€of€the€alleged€violation.ðð€€ò òòòRagsdalev.€Turnockó óóó,€841€F.2d€at€1365;€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóóÏò òòòDonovanv.€Cunninghamó óóó,€716€F.2d€at€1461.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€record€before€us,€we€are€not€persuaded€that€East€Coast€has€met€theÏheavy€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€present€controversy€is€moot.€€In€any€event,€because€theÏlikelihood€of€further€violations€by€East€Coast€is€inextricably€linked€to€the€issue€of€the€propriety€ofÏgranting€injunctive€relief€against€East€Coast,€we€conclude€that€these€arguments€are€moreÏappropriately€addressed€to€the€trial€court€on€remand.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòCity€of€Mesquitev.€AladdinððsÏCastle,€Inc.ó óóó,€455€U.S.€at€289€(indicating€that€abandonment€of€illegal€activity€ð ðis€an€importantÏfactor€bearing€on€the€question€whether€a€court€should€exercise€its€power€to€enjoin€the€defendantÏfrom€renewing€the€practice,€but€that€is€a€matter€relating€to€the€exercise€rather€than€the€existence€ofÏjudicial€powerðð);€ò òòòUnited€Statesv.€Concentrated€Phosphate€Export€Assððnó óóó,€393€U.S.€atÏ203„04€(holding€that€case€was€not€moot€but€noting€that€ð ðit€is€still€open€to€appellees€to€show,€onÏremand,€that€the€likelihood€of€further€violations€is€sufficiently€remote€to€make€injunctive€reliefÏunnecessaryðð);€ò òòòUnited€Statesv.€W.T.€Grant€Co.ó óóó,€345€U.S.€at€633€(indicating€thatÏprerequisite€for€granting€injunctive€relief€is€determination€ð ðthat€there€exists€some€cognizable€dangerÍof€recurrent€violation,€something€more€than€the€mere€possibilityðð);€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòState€ex€rel.ÏBairdv.€Wilson€Countyó óóó,€371€S.W.2d€434,€439€(Tenn.€1963)€(indicating€that€injunction€willÏnot€be€granted€unless€ð ðinjury€is€threatened€or€imminent€and,€in€all€probability,€about€to€beÏinflictedðð).ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòIII.€€Robin€Mediaððs€Claims€Against€Kenneth€Seaton€and€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forgeóóó óÌÌà àAs€for€Robin€Mediaððs€claims€for€injunctive€relief€against€Seaton€and€the€City,€theÏtrialÔ'  Ô€court€made€specific€findings€in€support€of€its€rulings€that€Robin€Media€was€not€entitled€toÏinjunctive€relief€against€either€Seaton€or€the€City.€€Inasmuch€as€this€case€was€tried€by€the€courtÏbelow€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthese€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€an€error€of€law.€€ò òòòDaileyv.€Batemanó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€927,Ï930€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€T.R.A.P.13(d).ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€standard,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Robin€Media€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€provingÏthat€Seaton€directed€or€participated€in€East€Coastððs€alleged€violations€of€Seatonððs€franchise.€€InÏorder€to€be€entitled€to€injunctive€relief€against€Seaton,€Robin€Media€was€required€to€prove€thatÏSeaton€participated€in€the€challenged€activities.€€ò òòòPadgettv.€Verneró óóó,€366€S.W.2d€545,€550„51Ï(Tenn.€App.€1963).€€At€trial,€no€evidence€was€introduced€to€show€that€Seaton€directed€orÏparticipated€in€East€Coastððs€allegedly€illegal€activities€of€providing€cable€television€services€to€non„Seaton€hotels€in€Pigeon€Forge.€€Randy€Coley€of€East€Coast€testified€that€Seaton€did€not€ask€him€toÏprovide€cable€television€services€to€the€non„Seaton€hotels€and€that€Coley€installed€the€additionalÏtaps€and€drop€lines€on€his€own€initiative.€€Randy€Coley,€or€his€representative,€offered€the€cableÏservices€for€sale€and,€on€behalf€of€East€Coast,€entered€into€contracts€for€such€services€with€theÏvarious€hotels.€€The€evidence€showed€that,€when€informed€of€East€Coastððs€possible€franchiseÍviolations,€Seaton€instructed€East€Coast€to€cease€providing€such€services€to€non„Seaton€hotels.€ÏThe€evidence€also€showed€that€Seaton€did€not€receive€any€profits€or€fees€relative€to€East€CoastððsÏprovision€of€services€to€non„Seaton€hotels.€€Ìà àBased€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€we€also€conclude€that€the€evidence€supports€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€Seaton€did€not€authorize€East€Coast€to€engage€in€illegal€activities.€€In€thisÏregard,€the€burden€of€proving€an€agency€relationship€was€on€the€party€alleging€its€existence,€RobinÏMedia,€and€the€scope€and€extent€of€the€authority€of€the€alleged€agent,€East€Coast,€was€a€question€toÏbe€determined€by€the€trial€court€from€all€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€in€evidence.€€ò òòòSloanv.ÏHalló óóó,€673€S.W.2d€548,€551€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€affirmÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€Robin€Mediaððs€claim€for€injunctive€relief€against€Seaton€based€onÏthe€courtððs€finding€that€Seaton€did€not€authorize€East€Coast€to€provide€cable€television€services€toÏnon„Seaton€hotels.€€In€affirming€the€trial€court€on€this€issue,€we€reject€Robin€Mediaððs€argument€thatÏthe€provisions€of€Seatonððs€franchise€and/or€the€federal€Cable€Communications€Policy€Act× ƒ) ××  ×€mandateÏthe€conclusion€that€Seaton€was€vicariously€responsible€for€Coleyððs€actions.ÌÌà àWe€likewise€conclude€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€deny€Robin€Mediaððs€claim€for€injunctive€relief€against€the€City€of€Pigeon€ForgeÏbased€on€the€courtððs€finding€that€the€City€already€had€performed€the€acts€sought€by€Robin€Media.€ÏIn€response€to€complaints€by€Robin€Media€and€others,€the€City€promptly€instructed€East€Coast€toÏcease€and€desist€offering€cable€television€services€to€non„Seaton€customers.€€Moreover,€there€wasÏevidence€that€the€City€was€instrumental€in€convincing€Randy€Coley€of€East€Coast€to€quit€providingÏservices€to€the€non„Seaton€hotels.€€Coley€testified€that€he€made€the€decision€to€discontinue€theÏservices,€in€part,€because€it€ð ðjust€wasnððt€worth€fighting€the€City.ðð€€Finally,€we€note€that€the€CityÏhas€filed€a€cross„claim€for€injunctive€relief€against€East€Coast€which€has€been€severed€from€thisÍproceeding.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€ruled€that€RobinÏMedia€was€not€entitled€to€injunctive€relief€against€the€City.ÌÌà àAlthough€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€that€Robin€Media€was€not€entitled€toÏinjunctive€relief€against€Kenneth€Seaton€or€the€City,€we€conclude€that€it€was€premature€for€the€trialÏcourt€to€dismiss€these€Defendants€from€the€lawsuit.€€In€the€event€that€the€trial€court€determines€onÏremand€that€some€form€of€declaratory€relief€is€appropriate,€both€Seaton€and€the€City€would€beÏnecessary€parties€to€such€a€proceeding.€€In€seeking€declaratory€relief,€Robin€Media€was€required€toÏname€as€parties€ð ðall€persons...€who€have€or€claim€any€interest€which€would€be€affected€by€theÏdeclaration.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð29„14„107(a)€(1980).€€Thus,€Robin€Media€properly€named€Seaton€as€aÏparty€to€this€action€because€Seaton€owns€the€cable€franchise€which€was€the€subject€of€this€lawsuitÏand€which€would€be€affected€by€any€declaratory€judgment€issued€by€the€trial€court.€€Robin€MediaÏalso€properly€named€the€City€as€a€party€to€this€action€because€the€franchise€at€issue€was€granted€byÏthe€City€and,€by€definition,€the€City€has€an€interest€which€would€be€affected€by€a€declaratoryÏjudgment.× ƒ, ××  ×€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,€ò òòòHarrillv.€American€Home€Mortgage€Co.ó óóó,€32€S.W.2d€1023Ï(Tenn.€1930)€(holding€that€trustee,€who€held€title€to€property,€and€bank,€which€held€notes€underÏpledge€to€secure€obligations€of€mortgage€company,€were€necessary€parties€to€suit€seekingÏdeclaration€as€to€validity€of€mortgage€contracts);€ò òòòBakerv.€Hancock€County€ElectionÏCommððnó óóó,€1987€WL€7717,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€Mar.12,€1987)€(holding€that,€in€action€againstÏcounty€election€commission€in€which€determinative€issue€was€whether€plaintiffs€lived€in€HancockÏCounty€or€Hawkins€County,€plaintiffs€were€required€to€join€as€indispensable€parties€bothÍcounties).ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òòòIV.€€Conclusionóóó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€those€portions€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€denying€Robin€MediaððsÏclaimsÔ'  Ô€for€injunctive€relief€against€Seaton€and€the€City€of€Pigeon€Forge;€however,€we€reverse€thoseÏportions€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€dismissing€the€Defendants€from€this€proceeding€and€remandÏthis€cause€for€the€trial€court€to€adjudicate€(1)Robin€Mediaððs€claim€for€injunctive€relief€against€EastÏCoast€and€(2)Robin€Mediaððs€claims€for€declaratory€relief€as€to€all€three€Defendants.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€taxed€to€East€Coast,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAMS,€Sr.€J.€(Concurs)›