We do not view Mensing as overruling Foster because the court in Foster did not reach its holding by relying on the ability of a plaintiff to sue generic manufacturers. Instead, the court’s holding was based on its interpretation of Maryland law and the conclusion that a name-brand manufacturer has no duty of care to consumers that are not using the manufacturer’s product. The Foster court’s opinion in dicta on the viability of suits against generic manufacturers was proved wrong, but this fact does not impose on name-brand manufacturers a duty of care to customers using generic products. Likewise, decisions that relied upon Foster to create a similar rule in Louisiana remain valid.
Demahy, slip op. at 8. Moreover, the court held that even if Foster were undercut, that was a Maryland law decision, and Louisiana law wouldn't allow the claims anyway. Id. at 8-9.
The court also addressed generic preemption (yet again), but mostly on the "mandate rule" that plaintiff didn't have any other claims before - so go away, plaintiff. Nonetheless, to cover all its bases, the court said that all the purported "other" claims were either disguised warning claims (preempted) or design claims (which are also preempted). Demahy, slip op. at 12-13 (with nice string-cite footnotes).
Stick a fork in Demahy - it's done.