any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter. (b) Uniformity Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter. 2 . See also Delta Dental v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 942 F.Supp. 740, 747-749 (D.R.I.1996) (state anti-trust lawsuit was properly remanded because plaintiff was entitled to plead only state claims even though plaintiff could have brought suit under the Sherman Act). 3 . Other than § 136v, LESCO directs the Court to no other evidence that Congress intended to dominate the field of pesticide regulation so completely that the entirely state law claims of plaintiffs must be read as inherently federal. 4 . See, e.g., Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 5 .Note, however, that the Court was
holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that those state law claims specifically related to labeling and packaging are preempted by fifra