A judge dismissed the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case filed in June by the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association amid a larger legal battle between the city and the nonprofit over management of a $50 million fund, officials announced Wednesday.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Deborah J. Salzman approved a motion Tuesday filed by city attorneys to dismiss GLAZA’s petition for bankruptcy. The city sought the dismissal in a bid to advance an ongoing lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against GLAZA over a $50 million endowment raised on behalf of the L.A. Zoo and Botanical Gardens.
“We are pleased that the Bankruptcy Court recognized GLAZA’s bankruptcy filing as yet another bad faith attempt to derail the ongoing litigation for its own benefit,” City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said in a statement.
A representative for GLAZA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
GLAZA, a nonprofit corporation, was formed in 1963 to assist Los Angeles with fundraising, membership programs, volunteer coordination, and special events for the zoo, which opened three years after in 1966.
But after a more than 60-year partnership, the city filed a lawsuit in 2024 against GLAZA over allegations that the nonprofit prioritized its own interests over those of the zoo. That year, the nonprofit canceled a key fundraising event it was obligated to oversee.
The city alleged breach of contract and of fiduciary duty. City attorneys also sought accounting of the nonprofit’s books, and a judge’s declaration of the rights and duties of the parties.
As part of initial proceedings, the two parties agreed to continue their partnership through June 30, 2025. Later, city attorneys won a preliminary injunction preventing GLAZA from spending any of the $50 million when its contract with the zoo ended.
A judge also ruled that GLAZA could not solicit donations that were not for the benefit of the zoo.
In court documents, city attorneys said they filed a motion for summary judgment on April 20, 2026, seeking determination of GLAZA’s fiduciary and contractual duties, damages of at least $49 million, and imposition of a trust over certain accounts holding zoo funds.
If the judge overseeing the case rules in favor of the city, it would resolve the court action. City attorneys said they would voluntarily dismiss its remaining claims and reduce the case to a judgment.
GLAZA’s opposition to the motion was due June 30, but weeks before, the nonprofit filed for bankruptcy, preventing the state court from moving forward on the matter.
The Los Angeles Times reported on the bankruptcy petition and found the nonprofit downsized from 42 full-time employees to four part-time employees. GLAZA told The Times it sought bankruptcy as it owed its creditors, and some $300,000 to pay a law firm that represented it in the lawsuit with the city.
“The city has designated an army of eight attorneys to overwhelm GLAZA with endless discovery, depositions, and court filings all to run up GLAZA’s legal fees,” GLAZA told The Times. “As a result, GLAZA has been left with no options other than to seek protection from the bankruptcy court to ensure the survival of GLAZA and the protection of its donors.”
Meanwhile, Feldstein Soto remained critical of GLAZA for what she said was an attempt to delay the city’s lawsuit for control of the $50 million fund meant to care for animals and maintenance of the zoo.
“The filings in the bankruptcy case revealed that GLAZA paid over a million dollars over the last year or so — at least $748,000 to its president and at least $390,000 to its lawyers — to obstruct the city’s efforts to recover its own funds from GLAZA as the city’s fiduciary.”
In court documents, GLAZA contended the money would be mismanaged under the city, citing concerns over the zoo’s director, Denise Verret, among other issues. GLAZA alleged Verret had spent $22,000 on a party celebrating her appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on upgrades to the assistant director’s office.
GLAZA also alleged in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request that was separate from the zoo. Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate, noting the spending was not questioned until after the city sued the association.
The city previously approved agreements with SSA Group LLC, to organize membership, special events and publications for the zoo, and The Superlative Group to maintain sponsorship programs. The city is in charge of volunteers.