have held that the AEMLD subsumes traditional negligent failure-to-warn claims. Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 230 F.3d 1300, 1310, 1312 (11th Cir.2000), (“In light of Veal, and because the only allegation in the complaint’s counts for negligence and wantonness that are not in the AEMLD count is that the ‘[defendants negligently designed, manufactured, sold, marketed and/or failed to warn about cigarettes that were unreasonably dangerous ...,’ we are convinced that the negligence and wantonness claims in this case merge into the AEMLD claim, but ‘we also invite that Court to tell us if the conclusions we have reached about’ ” whether “negligence and wantonness claims merge into an AEMLD claim”) ; Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 82 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1328-29 (S.D.Ala.1997) (<HOLDING>). In this case, this Court will stick to the
holding that plaintiffs failure to warn claim could not proceed independent of plaintiffs aemld claim holding that the uscfc did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim because plaintiffs claim of negligence sounds in tort holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding that because plaintiffs iied claim is based on the facts that support plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim plaintiffs iied claim did not accrue until the charges against them were dismissed holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim