legally, i don't think he has a leg to stand on, but a jury might be sympathetic; especially a jury comprised of older individuals who, 1) probably won't understand why a computer or iPhone needs to be on 24/7, and 2) may have health problems themselves, or neighbors who annoy them in some similar capacity. I think it's an unfortunate situation for the plaintiff, but I don't foresee any 'fair' solution for him. what if the Plaintiff had severe asthma, and the Defendant smoked in her back yard, right near the AC intake for the plaintiff's home? in that case, her actions are unnecessarily aggravating his medical condition, just like her phone. (not a perfect analogy, but the best I can come up with on the fly) Couldn't the court reasonable rule that smoking in that particular place is unnecessary, and preclude the defendant from smoking in close proximity to the Plaintiff's home? is a cell-phone an "essential service" when land-lines are a completely viable option? I don't think you can possibly argue that dimmer-switches or florescent bulbs are essential either. I'll concede that the plaintiff is asking a lot of his neighbor, but I wouldn't be shocked if a jury found the requests reasonable, given the circumstances of his legitimate medical condition. An expert witness could definitely sway a jury.