complaint on federal preemption grounds, the district court concluded that to the extentthatMr. Firstenberg’s claims related to Ms. Monribot’s use of her cell phone, the claims were preempted by federal law. In so holding, the district court relied on Murray v. Motorola, Inc., in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that lawsuits based on the premise that radio frequency (RF) emissions from cell phones are harmful to human health are preempted under the doctrine of conflict preemption because “[s]uch claims conflict with the [Federal Communications Commission (FCC)] determination that wireless phones that do comply with the FCC’s RF standards are safe for use by the general public].]” 982 A.2d 764, 768-69, 777-78 (D.C. 2009) (alteration omitted); see id. at 772 (<HOLDING>). {32} Mr. Firstenberg argues that the district
holding with respect to a general motion for directed verdict that it raised the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence on venue an essential part of the governments case internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that conflict preemption precludes laws that under the circumstances of a particular case stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress omission alteration internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that absent illegality we do not weigh the wisdom of any particular employment decision internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding in a related context that the legal determination that convictions arose out of separate criminal episodes is based on a factual finding specifically the finding that the acts giving rise to the convictions were not part of continuous and uninterrupted conduct that    is so joined in time place and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a criminal objective internal quotation marks omitted omission in original holding that an appeal is not moot so long as the appellate court can fashion relief that is both effective and equitable internal quotation marks omitted alteration in original