§ 343(a)(1); it also brings the conduct within the preemptive reach- of the-statute. “In circumstances where challenged conduct is expressly required or permitted by FDA regulations, the claims fall within the core 'of the preemption provision because they would ‘impose different requirements on precisely those aspects ... that the FDA had approved.’ ” Id. at *11 (quoting Altria Group, Inc., 555 U.S. at 86, 129 S.Ct. 538). A good example is Red v. The Kroger Co., where the court held that “[bjecause Plaintiffs challenge the use of terms that the FDA, through its regulations, has defined and permitted, Plaintiffs’ claims fall with the scope of the FDA’s preemption clause.” 2010 WL 4262037, at *7; see also Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 475 Fed.Appx. 113, 115 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Peviani v. Hostess Brands, Inc., 750
holding claims preempted where plaintiffs sought to enjoin and declare unlawful the very statement that federal law permits and defines because sueh relief would impose a burden through state law that is not identical to the requirements under section 343r holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law