Does a district court abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because any amendment premised on a promissory estoppel claim would have been futile?

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because any amendment premised on a promissory estoppel claim would have been futile. See Chinatown Neighborhood Ass'n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 2015) ("Although leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, it may be denied if the proposed amendment either lacks merit or would not serve any purpose because to grant it would be futile in saving the plaintiff's suit. . . .") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).