doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of their claim that would entitle them to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The parties agree that the case is governed by Virginia law. Count I of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sets forth a claim for negligence. The plaintiffs contend that Bank of America negligently failed to place a hold on the funds in the Authorized Auto account. Under Virginia law, there can be no actionable negligence where there is no legal duty to exercise care. Deem v. Charles E. Smith Management, Inc., 799 F.2d 944, 945 (4th Cir.1986). The plaintiffs acknowledge that a bank ordinarily owes no duty of care to a noncustomer. See Eisenberg v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 301 F.3d 220, 226-227 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs also acknowledge that, absent
holding that a bank owed no duty of care to a noncustomer who was defrauded by a bank depositer since the bank had no direct relationship with the noncustomer holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding that a plaintiff who alleged that bank of america was responsible and liable for the actions of countrywide and who pled no facts beyond the purchase of countrywide by bank of america had failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim against the bank