With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". AND As.”). After examining the relevant regulations, we find that the status of an ANDA holder’s product as the RLD for a given prescription drug product does not alter the ANDA holder’s obligations. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs RLD theory against Mylan. 3. Remaining State Law Claims Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing their remaining state law claims including breach of express and implied warranty, misrepresentation, fraud, consumer protection, and statutory negligence. A prior panel of this Court rejected similar claims, including breach of warranty, fraud, and misrepresentation under Tennessee law in Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 737 F.3d 378, 391-96 (6th Cir.2013), finding t 9 S.Ct. 538, 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008) (<HOLDING>), where the Supreme Court found express

A: holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
B: holding that the labeling act did not preempt negligent and wanton design and manufacture claims against cigarette manufacturer
C: holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims
D: holding that the federal insecticide fungicide and rodenticide act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims
C.