RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TOXIC TORTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

The Court then held the state common law negligence and strict liability claims to impose requirements that conflict with federal statutory requirements.8 Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the MDAs preemption clause bars state common law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form preapproved by the FDA, and affirmed the Second Circuit.9 B. Federal Cigarette Labeling Requirements Do Not Preempt State Deceptive Advertising Laws In Altria Group, Inc. v. Good,10 smokers of light cigarettes alleged that cigarette manufacturer Altria had violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently advertising that its cigarettes would deliver less tar and nicotine than regular brands. [...] the Fifth Circuit dismissed the three remaining claims - unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy - based on prudential standing consideration.185 In a separate concurrence, Judge Eugene W Davis indicated that he would have affirmed the trial court's dismissal on the alternative ground that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim by failing adequately to plead proximate cause, but joined the majority because the panel has discretion not to consider alternative grounds and opted not to do so.186 C. Native Village ofKivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. The third of the trilogy, Native Village ofKivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.,187 was issued by the Northern District of California on September 30, 2009.