preempted under Mensing and Bartlett. We reach the same result here. a. Breach of Express and Implied .Warranty Claims Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly dismissed their breach of warranty claims. They allege that the Generic Manufacturers expressly warranted that propoxyphene “had been adequately tested” and “was safe and effective for pain management” on the products’ labeling. Plaintiffs also claim that in selling propoxyphene, Generic Manufacturers impliedly warranted that their product was safe and effective. The district court held that the express warranty claims are attacks on Generic Manufacturers’ labeling, and the implied warranty claims were attacks on Generic Manufacturers’ product design, both preempted under Mensing 5 S.Ct. 1788, 161 L.Ed.2d 687 (2005) (<HOLDING>), and Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70,
holding that the federal insecticide fungicide and rodenticide act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions