With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 341. 4 .It should be noted that there is another class action pending before same district judge who decided POM Wonderful. See Saedian v. The Coca Cola Co., No. 2:09cv06309-SJO-JPR (C.D.Cal.) (Otero, J.). The plaintiffs there bring claims against what appears to be the same product. The instant case was stayed pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether to transfer or consolidate it with the Saedian case. ECF No. 30. This Court lifted the stay after the JPML denied the Defendants’motion. ECF No. 31. 5 . The preemption clause makes no mention of § 343(a). 6 . It is true that not every violation of the FDCA will support a state-law claim. See Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 353, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516, 518-19

A: holding that express warranty claims that could only arise out of fda approval are preempted
B: holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda
C: holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted
D: holding fraudulent representations to the fda could not sustain statelaw claims
D.