Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.- Analyzing specific tort duties in these 52 jurisdictions and then comparing them to federal labeling requirements would be onerous, and it is unnecessary. Tort law in particular jurisdictions may or may not require Defendant to change statements regarding efficacy in Lipitor’s label, based on the ASCOT data. It is sufficient here to hold that, to the extent any state law does so require, Defendant cannot comply with that state law and federal labeling requirements simultaneously. See, e.g., Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1286 (10th Cir.2013) (“[S]tate tort law is preempted if it imposes a duty upon manufacturers to take some action that is prohibited under federal law.”); see also Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 478 (4th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>), 9 . The Court makes this holding without
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that even if such claims are cognizable under state law they are preempted in the case of generic drug manufacturers holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation