PITTSBURGH – A local woman whose home is located adjacent to pickleball courts at Moore Park has sued the City of Pittsburgh and says that her quality of life has been negatively impacted by the noise of constant play at those same courts.
Catherine A. Ingold filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 30 versus the City of Pittsburgh.
“Defendant City has constructed the courts at Moore Park, 1801 Pioneer Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15226. Ms. Ingold’s property is approximately 30 feet away from the courts at Moore Park. The sound of play at the courts has been a constant burden to Ms. Ingold,” the suit states.
“Although the courts were not built this year, the level of activity at them has exploded in the recent past. Ms. Ingold begins to hear the noise as early as 6 a.m. and as late as 11 p.m. The constant barrage of noise has impacted Ms. Ingold’s nerves, harmed her ability to concentrate, destroyed her ability to relax in her own home, impacted her sleep patterns and caused her significant additional mental and physical health problems.”
The suit adds Ingold “tried to contact the City repeatedly, beginning in June of 2023 and attempted to utilize the 311 Issue Response Line and the 311 Issue Form to alert the City to the problem.”
When she received no response, Ingold says she emailed the City at the end of July and received a response from an Infrastructure Engagement Specialist from the mayor’s office in August. That contact led the City to submit a sign request to limit the hours of play at the pickleball courts from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
“A City employee also suggested to Ms. Ingold that she contact the police when the pickleball playing was too loud, since they are responsible for responding to noise violations. Ms. Ingold estimates that she has attempted to contact the City, through the 311 line, through 311 forms, or through various city offices, more than 20 times since June of 2023,” the suit says.
“Moore Park has other, more secluded areas, which would be better suited for pickleball courts. Ms. Ingold has tried to resolve this issue for months before deciding to pursue legal action.”
Ingold’s complaint contends that pickleball playing at all hours violates the City’s noise ordinance, that “greater harm will result if this Court does not grant the injunction than if it does” and that “[the plaintiff] is suffering irreparable harm right now.”
“There is no risk of harm to the City by closing the courts, as the courts clearly violate the City’s own noise ordinance and cause harm to residents, there are other pickleball courts around the City, and these courts can be moved to another part of Moore Park where they will not violate the noise ordinance,” the suit says.
The plaintiff also further provided their rationale for bringing the litigation.
“This action arises out of defendant City’s decision to construct pickleball courts at Moore Park. Pickleball is an unusually loud sport: It can be heard at 70 decibels from 100 feet away. That means that if the courts are 100 feet away, pickleball sounds as loud as a person vacuuming in the same room. And yet, the City has constructed and maintained these courts within 30 feet of residential properties, specifically, Ms. Ingold’s. This is not a frivolous matter for Ms. Ingold. She can hear the noise from the courts beginning as early as 6 a.m., throughout her workday at home, and into the night, as late as 11 p.m. Ms. Ingold’s health, both mental and physical, has been impacted by the constant, loud, high-pitched noise. Ms. Ingold does not file this lawsuit lightly. She has been attempting to contact the City since June, to eliminate or at least ameliorate the issue, with no results,” the suit says.
“She used the 311 call lines and issue forms in June and July. She placed calls and emails to the mayor’s office in August, and was assured that signage would be put up to, at the very least, require pickleball players to limit their playing to certain hours. When Ms. Ingold was forced to retain counsel, counsel has faced a similar lack of action or information from the City, necessitating this lawsuit. When the possibility of this lawsuit was raised to the City, counsel was informed the City preferred litigation because it would tie the matter up ‘for seven years.’ In short, the City has ignored Ms. Ingold. The City’s actions of building the Courts 30 feet from Ms. Ingold’s property line are, and allow for, a clear violation of the City’s own noise ordinance and/or an unreasonable nuisance. Ms. Ingold comes before this Court asking it to finally force the City into action to comply with its own requirements. The courts must be closed.”
For counts of declaratory injunctive relief, negligence, private nuisance and public nuisance, the plaintiff is seeking permanent injunctive relief that will restore the status quo and require the City to: 1) Close the Courts for the fall and winter season; 2) Remove the nets, so that the Courts are not playable; 3) Lock the fencing around the Courts; 4) Install signage informing potential users of the Courts that playing is strictly prohibited and 5) relocate the Courts to another location in the spring season – in addition to damages in excess of jurisdictional arbitration limits, as well as punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs and any and all additional relief this Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Lucas Liben of Reed Smith, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-013605
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com