Jamestown Bowling Company remains open – but the companies that own the longtime Jamestown bowling alley are stuck on opposite sides of a 7-10 split.

A receiver has been appointed by the state Supreme Court in Mayville as a dispute is resolved amongst the ownership group of Jamestown Bowling Company in East Second Street. In late June, Leonard Pimm filed suit in state Supreme Court asking the court to resolve a deadlock between equal owners of Pimm Mee Corp. and BC Bowl Corp., two closely held corporations. The dispute includes what Pimm terms “financial mismanagement of the corporations by one shareholder over the other shareholder’s objections, and presents an urgent need for court intervention to stabilize the corporations’ financial operations and preserve their primary and most valuable asset.”

According to court documents, Pimm and James Mee each own 50% of Pimm Mee Corp. and JBC Bowl Corp. The companies have been unable to function effectively, including with respects to paying obligations like property taxes, managing finances and making necessary business decisions. That includes facing an imminent deadline earlier this year to pay delinquent property taxes or possibly have the Jamestown Bowling Company foreclosed upon and sold as early as July 2026 at a public auction.

“This was not a speculative or remote risk,” the complaint states. “The companies had reached the point where immediate action was required to avoid the loss of their primary asset. Due to the complete deadlock between the parties, there was no ability to act through ordinary corporate governance channels. … While that payment temporarily preserved the property, the underlying governance failure that gave rise to this crisis remains unresolved.”

State Supreme Court Justice Emilio Colaiacovo has scheduled an Order to Show Cause hearing at 3 p.m. Aug. 26 to hear oral arguments while also granting Pimm’s proposal for a temporary injunction preventing Mee from taking any action to sell, transfer, encumber or dispose of any material assets of the company without court approval as well as limiting business actions until the court hearing. On June 25, Colaiacovo appointed a temporary receiver to preserve the company’s assets, evaluate options for an orderly resolution and avoid premature liquidation. The receiver then received court approval in early July to hire a bookkeeper.

“The companies’ financial records and accounting functions require professional attention so the receivership can accurately pay expenses, monitor activities, maintain books and records, address tax compliance obligations and provide the financial information necessary for the orderly administration of the companies,” Receiver Tristan Hujer wrote to Colaiacovo on July 6. “While I am charged with managing the companies’ financial affairs, the performance of day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting work necessarily requires the assistance of a qualified financial professional.'”

While business continues under the receiver, a memorandum of law filed by Tracey Scarpello, Pimm’s attorney, makes clear that the solution is temporary.

“Under Business Corporation Law Section 1104, dissolution is appropriate where shareholders are equally divided; and the corporation cannot function effectively,” Scarpello wrote, citing case law before continuing, “The allegations in this case meet that standard. While plaintiff seeks interim relief at this stage, the court should recognize that absent resolution, dissolution may be the only viable outcome.”