case parallels Bartlett itself, wherein the Supreme Court did not find the parallel misbranding theory applicable. In Bartlett, the FDA had ordered new labeling for the drug at issue upon completion of a comprehensive safety review and its conclusion that the drug should not be removed from the market. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. at 2477 n. 4. 3 . Mylan their fraud, misrepresentation, and consumer protection claims are not preempted because they parallel the misbranding statute. As discussed above in Section A.I., Plaintiffs’ mis-branding theory fails in its entirety. 6 . Plaintiffs raised several other theories in the district court. Because they appeal only the dismissal of their misrepresentation claim, all other theories of recovery are forfeited on appeal. See Johnson, 440 F.3d at 845-46 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). 7 . See, e.g., Smith, 657
holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief holding that an appellant forfeits all issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned