b'financial results on February 26, 2019, it disclosed that growth had continued to slow. On an earnings call that day, Inogens CEO backtracked previous statements concerning Inogens TAM. Following this news, Inogens stock price dropped again.On March 6, 2019, investors filed a putative class action against Inogen and two of its officers alleging viola-tions of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b5 of the 1934 Act, alleging that defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the strength of Inogens salesforce acumen and the size of the total addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators, leading the market to believe that Inogens financial growth and prospects were much stronger than they really were. Defendants allegedly concealed nefarious sales tactics designed to deceive its elderly customers as a large source of Inogens sales growth.On September 23, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated amended complaint. The court granted the motion, holding that all of the statements at issue in the complaint were forward-looking, and that plaintiffs had not articulated why the PSLRAs safe harbor did not bar their claims. The court granted leave to amend and cautioned that plaintiffs should evaluate the contentions set forth in defendants Motion and consider whether it was possible to circumvent the PSLRAs safe harbor. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a sec-ond amended complaint, and defendants again moved to dismiss. On September 2, 2020, the court denied defendants motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court took issue with the structure of the 272-para-graph second amended complaint, holding that while the complaint did not quite rise to the level of puz-zle pleading that might compel dismissal, the court believes that there is a more straightforward manner to organize the allegations. The court gave plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, and directed plaintiffs to file a document listing the statements that plaintiffs allege to be false or misleading, without other facts or argumentation.The court took issue with the structure of the 272-paragraph second amended complaint, holding that while the complaint did not quite rise to the level of puzzle pleading that might compel dismissal, the court believes that there is a more straightforward manner to organize the allegations.58'