context: Perhaps because Executive Coach did not raise this argument until its reply brief, the district court did not rule on it, and "we do not normally consider issues which the district court did not rule upon." To the extent that the argument is properly before us, we And that Executive Coach has not met its burden to demonstrate that conflict preemption applies: It has not shown that it is impossible to comply with its warranty obligation and the FMVSS, nor has it established that its warranty obligation "stands as an obstacle" to the objectives of the Safety Act or the FMVSS.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 582 F.3d 863, 880
citation_a.parenthetical: burden is on party asserting federal preemption of state law
citation_a.sentence: Geier, 529 U.S. at 873-74, 120 S.Ct. 1913 (internal quotation omitted); Williams v. Nat’l Football League, 582 F.3d 863, 880 (8th Cir. 2009) (burden is on party asserting federal preemption of state law); see also Fabian, 628 F.3d at 282-83 (holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a FMVSS).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 628 F.3d 282, 282-83
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a FMVSS
citation_b.sentence: Geier, 529 U.S. at 873-74, 120 S.Ct. 1913 (internal quotation omitted); Williams v. Nat’l Football League, 582 F.3d 863, 880 (8th Cir. 2009) (burden is on party asserting federal preemption of state law); see also Fabian, 628 F.3d at 282-83 (holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a FMVSS).