PITTSBURGH – A local woman whose home is located adjacent to pickleball courts at Moore Park has restated claims against the City of Pittsburgh and that her quality of life has been negatively impacted by the noise of constant play at those same courts.
Catherine A. Ingold first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 30, 2023 versus the City of Pittsburgh.
“Defendant City has constructed the courts at Moore Park, 1801 Pioneer Avenue, 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 stated.
“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 added 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 said 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 said.
“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 contended 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 said.
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 said.
“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.”
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed on Jan. 8, and both the City and the plaintiff each replied with preliminary objections, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mary C. McGinley, on March 8, sustained plaintiff objections with respect to the defenses of statute of limitations and immunity, which must be pled as new matter by the defense and cannot be decided on the face of the pleadings in this case.
McGinley further decided the defendant’s preliminary objections, demurrers based on statute of limitations and sovereign immunity, were overruled.
Her ruling led the City to answer the case on April 8, it explained that a representative from the Mayor’s Office reached out to Ingold in July of 2023 and the City then reduced the playing hours for the pickleball courts at Moore Park, as a direct response to the plaintiff’s complaints.
Pickleball was originally permitted to be played whenever Moore Park was open to the public, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. But following the complaints of the plaintiff, the City adjusted the hours of pickleball play from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
It added that “Moore Park is essentially built out without additional available space; in addition to the two pickleball courts, Moore Park has a basketball court, three tennis courts, a playground, a spray park, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with attendant pool buildings, two baseball fields, a football field, a soccer field and parking areas” and the plaintiff “has not provided a sound study supporting the assertion that other portions of Moore Park would be ‘more appropriate’ for pickleball courts.”
“The City has a goal of providing a public park or green space within a 10-minute walk of every City resident. Neighborhood parks, such as Moore Park in Brookline, are to provide recreation that is reachable by walking to a great number of residents, and it has done so since it was first acquired by the City and dedicated to public use in 1931. Neighborhood parks are located in residential areas because that is where they are needed most and where most people can reach them. Plaintiff lists six other parks in the City with pickleball courts, but these parks are dispersed throughout the City and are not walkable from Brookline or easily reached by public transportation from Brookline,” the answer stated, in part.
“For instance, Allegheny Commons Park is 6.2 miles from Moore Park, Bud Hammer Field is 7.5 miles from Moore Park, Fineview is 6.8 miles from Moore Park, the Frick Park Blue Slide Playground is 8.0 miles from Moore Park, the Schenley Park Oval is 8.3 miles from Moore Park, and Washington’s Landing Park is 5.6 miles from Moore Park. Plaintiff seeks to shut off features of a walkable urban oasis and force residents to drive to a different park in the City.”
The City also raised new matter defenses on its own behalf.
“The causes of action alleged in the complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The causes of action alleged in the complaint are barred by latches, estoppel, waiver, collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. All of the causes of action raised by plaintiff are subject to a two-year statute of limitation set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5524. This lawsuit is untimely as the City completed construction of the pickleball courts at Moore Park in 2018, but plaintiff waited until 2023 to file suit. Plaintiff did not provide the City with notice of accrual of the cause of action within six months as required by 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5522(a). The complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted,” according to the new matter.
“The City pleads the Public Duty Doctrine as an affirmative defense. The causes of action alleged in the complaint may be barred, circumscribed or otherwise diminished by the application of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and the City raises all applicable protections of this Act. None of the causes of action complained of by plaintiff fall within one of the exceptions to immunity under the Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff failed to provide the City with notice of the cause of action within six months of accrual, as required by the Judicial Code. Moore Park is not a nuisance, but is rather a long-standing public asset providing exercise and recreation. Any of plaintiff’s claimed damages, injuries or medical conditions are pre-existing and/or were caused by other conditions/accidents/incidents for which the City is not responsible. The City believes and therefore avers that plaintiff may not have mitigated her damages and, therefore, their damages must be reduced by her failure to mitigate.”
In an April 23 reply to the new matter, the plaintiff refuted it in its entirety as conclusions of law to which no response was required – and to the extent that a response was required, the plaintiff denies the allegations of the new matter.
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 is represented by Assistant City Solicitor Lawrence H. Baumiller and City Solicitor Krysia M. Kubiak, of the City of Pittsburgh’s Law Department.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-013605
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com