govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_19-cv-00637-5

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
MICROBILT CORPORATION, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
BAIL INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS, INC. et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 19-637 (RK) (JBD) 
 
ORDER & JUDGMENT 
 
KIRSCH, District Judge 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Reports and Recommendations 
(“R&Rs”) of Special Master the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (ret), (ECF Nos. 124, 
125), pursuant to the Court’s appointment of Judge Cavanaugh as Special Master in this matter for 
the purpose of determining Plaintiff Microbilt Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) damages following the 
entry of default judgments against Defendants Bail Integrity Solutions, Inc. and Thomas Brian Shirah 
(together, “Defendants”), (ECF No. 122 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 53)). As provided in the Order 
Appointing Special Master, (id. ¶ 4), and as reiterated in the Court’s May 29, 2026 Text Order, (ECF 
No. 126), any party wishing to make an objection to either R&R was required to do so within fourteen 
(14) days of the filing of the same. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). The parties were specifically 
advised that “[t]he failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of any objection.” (ECF 
No. 122 ¶ 4.) No objections have been filed. Having carefully considered the R&Rs under the 
applicable law, in the absence of any objections thereto, and for good cause shown, 
IT IS on this 16th day of June, 2026, ORDERED that: 
1. The Special Master’s unopposed Reports and Recommendations, (ECF Nos. 124, 125), are 
hereby ADOPTED in full as the opinion of the Court; PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
2. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as follows: 
a. Plaintiff is AWARDED compensatory damages totaling $10,181,886.46;1 
b. Plaintiff is AWARDED pre-judgment interest through January 1, 2026 in the amount 
of $2,813,687.61; 
c. Plaintiff is AWARDED post-judgment interest against Defendant Bail Integrity 
Solutions, Inc. at a daily rate of $867.55 with an annual interest of $316,656.67; 
d. Plaintiff is AWARDED post-judgment interest against Defendant Thomas Brian 
Shirah at a daily rate of $1,433.83 with an annual interest of $523,348.96; 
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.2 
 
ROBERT KIRSCH 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
1 The Court ADOPTS in full the Special Master’s findings and conclusions as to each category of 
compensatory damages, set forth in detail in the corresponding R&R. (ECF No. 125 at 4, 16–17 
(recommending compensatory damages as follows: $119,308.08 in product development costs; 
$215,706.20 in software development costs; $43,141.24 in equipment/technology infrastructure costs 
associated with software development; $532,683.80 in “costs associated with time that Plaintiff’s 
management employees and consultants devoted to working on [the subject Mobile Device Verification 
service]”; $109,500.00 in “payment by Plaintiff to its principal supplier, Zumigo”; $41,547.14 in legal fees 
to defendant government regulatory inquiries; $2,736,000.00 in projected lost revenue; and $6,384,000.00 
in lost company valuation).) The compensatory damages amount awarded hereinabove—$10,181,886.46—
is the total of each such category, by the Court’s calculation. 
2 Plaintiff asked the Special Master to make specific findings regarding Defendants’ fraudulent conduct and 
intent “in order to prevent [Plaintiff’s] judgment from being discharged in any future bankruptcy pursuant 
to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).” (ECF No. 125 at 6.) Judge Cavanaugh declined to do so, reasoning 
that Plaintiff “ha[d] not provided any factual or legal support for the proposition that the Special Master has 
the authority to make the findings it requests.” ( Id. at 16; see ECF No. 122 ( Order Appointing Special 
Master for the purpose of determining Plaintiff’s damages).) 
In light of Plaintiff’s request, the Court reiterates the findings set forth in its prior decisions granting default 
judgment as to, inter alia, Plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Defendants. (ECF Nos. 81, 
82, 103, 104 .) That is, Plaintiff’s well -pleaded Complaint allegations, which are deemed admitted on 
default, sufficiently establish Defendants’ liability for fraudulent misrepresentation as a matter of law. See 
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1146, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990). As such, the Court previously found 
that Defendants made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff with knowledge or belief of the falsity thereof 
and with the intention that Plaintiff rely there upon; Plaintiff reasonably relied thereupon; and Plaintiff 
sustained damages as a result. City of Atl. City v. Zemurray St. Cap., LLC, No. 14-5169, 2017 WL 6638203, 
at *18 (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2017) (citing Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, 558 F. Supp. 2d 505, 526 (D.N.J. 2008)). PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight