Foundation v. Kessler, 880 F.Supp. 26, 28 (D.D.C.1995); see also United States v. LeBeau, 985 2 F.3d 1167, 1169 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161, 115 S.Ct. 2614, 132 L.Ed.2d 857 (1985); Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1421-22 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 824, 114 S.Ct. 86, 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993); Fry v. Allergan Med. Optics, 695 A.2d 511, 516 (R.I.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 952, 118 S.Ct. 374, 139 L.Ed.2d 291 (1997); Easterling v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 986 F.Supp. 366, 374 (E.D.La. 1997); Lake v. TPLC, 1 F.Supp.2d 84, 86-87 (D.Mass.1998); Martin v. Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 105 F.3d 1090, 1098-1100 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075, 118 S.Ct. 850, 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); cf. Lakie v. SmithKline Beecham, 965 F.Supp. 49, 53 (D.D.C.1997) (<HOLDING>); Sowell v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 230 A.D.2d 77,
recognizing the reciprocal payment obligations of the lender and borrower under tila section 1635b and regulation z section 22623d holding that section 4a12 is a broadly applicable section of the guidelines holding that pmaprocess is not specific regulation triggering preemption under section section 360k holding under section 1902a1 specific intent required as an element of section 1501 is the intent to cause the death of an individual holding that analysis under section 1301g is not the same as the analysis under section 1301f and that the existence of accident or mistake is irrelevant because appellants moved for relief only under section 1301f