| | | Full case file here dated July 25:
"Mr. Ticktin and Ticktin Law Group, P.A. shall have up to and including thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to pay the sanction award.
And for anyone remembering the initial $150,000 court-recommended sanction, did you ever get a piece of dog poo on your shoe as a kid, and need Mom's help to clean it off and get rid of the stink?
"Judge Porcelli recommended reducing the lodestar amount of $285,053.88 to a final sanctions award of $150,000.00 as sufficient to deter future sanctionable conduct in light of Mr. Ticktin’s financial condition. (Dkt. 198 at 19–22)
Defendants object, arguing that Mr. Ticktin’s representations about his financial condition are inconsistent with his law firm’s financial records. (Dkt. 203 at 9–10)
Mr. Ticktin, by contrast, seeks a further reduction of the sanctions award to $25,000, arguing that any greater amount would impose a “great hardship.”
(Dkt. 204 at 9) The Court finds that further reduction is not warranted. To determine the appropriate amount of sanctions, the district court should consider the sanctioned party’s financial ability to pay the sanctions. Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 528-29 (11th Cir. 1998) (“The law in this circuit is clear that ability to pay should be considered in the award of attorney’s fees under § 1988” and extending the principle to sanctions award).
A party arguing that it is unable to pay has the burden to present evidence of inability to pay. Id. at 528. Upon de novo review of the record and M and Mr. Ticktin’s financial statements, (Dkt. 183), the Court is satisfied that the evidence of record demonstrates that Ticktin and his firm have the ability to pay the full lodestar total of $320,819.88.
Profit and loss statements filed by Ticktin reflect that Ticktin Law Group, P.A. generated a gross profit of nearly $6,000,000 between 2023 and 2024. (Dkt. 183-6 at 4, 10) Moreover, the Court concludes that a lesser rate would not serve to deter this flagrant conduct....
Certainly, reducing the sanctions to the nominal sum of $25,000, as Mr. Ticktin requests, would fail to achieve the necessary deterrent effect demanded by the abhorrent conduct reflected in this record.
In fact, the Court finds that this request itself illustrates a lack of appreciation for the significance and severity of the firm’s misconduct. If the Court were to accept this proposal, it would effectively greenlight this conduct in the future for firms, like the Ticktin Law group, which could simply build a nominal sanction cost into the cost of doing business in this fashion. To impose such a minimal sanction would risk trivializing the seriousness of the violations and undermine the Courts responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process." |
|
