On February 23rd, CCL filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose to the petition for a writ of certiorari in Pliva, Inc. v. Huck, No. 14-544, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The case involves a failure-to-warn claim against the manufacturer of generic metoclopramide based on its failure to provide a warning against longterm use of the drug that had already been approved by the FDA. The Iowa Supreme Court recognized that such a claim escaped federal preemption under the reasoning of Fulgenzi v. Pliva, Inc., 711 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2013), another case that CCL handled. The failure to provide the updated warning that the name-brand manufacturer utilizes takes the case outside the scope of Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011), where the Supreme Court ruled it impossible for the generic manufacturer to update warnings on its own. Pliva petitioned for Supreme Court review, contending that plaintiff’s claim was impliedly preempted under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), as an attempt at private enforcement of the FDCA. The brief was written by CCL Chief Counsel Lou Bograd on behalf of Theresa Huck and argued that that question Pliva put forth was not actually presented in this case, that the question actually decided by the Iowa Supreme Court had already been answered by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the FDA had rejected Pliva’s interpretation of federal regulatory requirements, and that the issue—which largely affects a single company—would largely be mooted by a new labeling regulation proposed by the FDA.