See Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating that “[t]he mere recital of elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, is not sufficient to survive a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)”) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); see also Priest v. DBI Services, LLC, C. A. No. 3:21-cv-712 (DJN), 2022 WL 4242836, at *5 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2022) (denying a motion for default judgment, in part, because “[t]he Amended Complaint and affidavits [did] not contain any allegations regarding how many yards Defendant managed in Virginia, the number of employees at each yard, where such yards were specifically located, or whether the employees were shared or rotated to multiple yards”). It appears that the parties do not dispute whether kiosks in Region NEF were “used for the same purpose.”
The Report and Recommendation is published as Priest v. DBI Servs., LLC, No. 3:21CV712 (DJN), 2022 WL 4242836 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2022) (report and recommendation), and the Court's order adopting the Report and Recommendation is published as Priest v. DBI Servs., LLC, No. 3:21CV712 (RCY), 2022 WL 4241647 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2022). C. Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Default Judgment