Opinion ID: 603902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: kyle's other arguments

Text: 22 A. The District Court did not Err by Denying Kyle Further Leave to Amend its Complaint Regarding the Fiduciary and Nonfiduciary Liability of the Defendants. 23 Kyle claims that it should have been given the opportunity to allege sufficient facts to state causes of action before the district court dismissed its claims. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. See Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir.1991). Such a denial, however, is strictly reviewed in light of the strong policy permitting amendment. Id. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because it looked beyond Kyle's complaint and assumed the facts that Kyle alleged in its memoranda and oral arguments in opposition to the motions to dismiss. Kyle's claims were invalid as a matter of law, and leave to amend would not have allowed Kyle to state valid claims. 24 B. ERISA's Preemption Provision, as Applied to Kyle, does not Deprive Kyle of its Property without Due Process, in Violation of the Fifth Amendment. 25 Kyle has failed to demonstrate that the application of ERISA's preemptive provision violates Kyle's constitutional due process rights. Kyle has a difficult burden. [L]egislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality[;] ... the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 729, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 2717, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984) (citations omitted). 26 The essence of Kyle's claim is that by preempting any state law causes of action Kyle might have against the defendants, while failing to provide federal causes of action, ERISA has left a gap in the law. However, such a gap is legitimate if it is the result intended by Congress. Howard v. Parisian, Inc., 807 F.2d 1560, 1565 (11th Cir.1987). Kyle has failed to prove that Congress acted in an arbitrary and irrational manner in adopting ERISA. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 467 U.S. at 729, 104 S.Ct. at 2717. Accordingly, we reject Kyle's due process challenge.