liability and negligence ... to failure to warn and manufacturing-and-design defect.” Lemelle, 698 F.Supp.2d at 682-83 (noting that state law product liability claims are preempted by the MDA); In re Medtronic, Inc. Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litigation, 592 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1152 (D.Minn.2009) (collecting cases); see also Funk, 673 F.Supp.2d at 531 (dismissing claims for strict liability, negligence, and violations of the DTPA); Delaney, 2009 WL 564243, at *2-*7 (concluding that Plaintiffs claims for failure to warn, defective manufacture, defective design, negligence and recklessness, breach of warranties, and fraud were preempted because they imposed different or additional requirements upon the Trident System); Horowitz v. Stryker, 613 F.Supp.2d 271 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>); but see Hofts v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.,
holding the mda did not preempt plaintiffs state common law claims for defective design defective manufacture and failure to warn holding that plaintiffs negligence defective manufacturing defective design breach of warranty and failure to warn claims were preempted by the mda and fdca defined below holding that acts of improper maintenance were insufficient to defeat plaintiffs defective design claim holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective