is obligated to make concerning the Infuse device, and therefore preempts Schouest’s breach of implied warranty claim. However, the express warranty claim could survive. “Federal law permits, but does not require, manufacturers like [Medtronic] to make warranties, as long as those warranties are truthful and accurate.” Riley, 625 F.Supp.2d at 788. Schouest’s express warranty claim can survive to the extent she seeks to recover based on false warranties that Medtronic voluntarily and falsely made beyond the federally approved warning because “[f]ed-eral law already requires [Medtronic] to ensure that any warranty statements it voluntarily makes are truthful, accurate, not misleading, and consistent with applicable federal and state law.” Id.; see also Houston, 957 F.Supp.2d at 1180-81 (<HOLDING>). While conceptually an express warranty claim
recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty holding that breach of express warranty claim could survive preemption because by seeking to impose liability on defendants for voluntarily making misleading warranties outside the label plaintiff is not imposing any requirement different from or additional to what federal law already requires holding that a plaintiff is required to identify specific acts of individual defendants  for his claim to survive holding plaintiff was barred from seeking remedy because express warranty expired in accordance with time limits elucidated in the limited repair and replace warranty