Schultz v. Roker

Case 1:24-cv-02852 Document 1 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM SCHULTZ, an individual,

Case No.:
Plaintiff,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
COMPLAINT
WEATHERHUNTERS, INC., a New York
Corporation, AL ROKER
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a New York
Corporation, AL ROKER an individual and
LISA TUCKER, an individual
Defendants.
William “Bill” Schultz (“Plaintiff” or “William Schultz”) for his Complaint against
defendants WeatherHunters, Inc. (“WHI”), Al Roker Entertainment, Inc., Al Roker, an
individual, and Lisa Tucker, an individual (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. The wrongful acts upon which this matter is based flows from the inappropriate
conduct directed toward Plaintiff by Defendants Al Roker Entertainment, its alter ego
WeatherHunters, Inc.(“WHI”) and individuals Al Roker and Lisa Tucker. Plaintiff, a noted and
acclaimed producer of animated television programming, was wrongfully and illegally targeted,
leading to the illegal termination of an agreement that he had with Defendant WHI and its Alter
Ego Al Roker Entertainment in retaliation for Plaintiff standing tall as a whistle blower and
complaining of: (i) illegal racial bias and discrimination against African Americans and other
black, indigenous and other people of color (“BIPOC” people) in the workplace and; (ii) for
objecting to the denigration and wholesale deconstruction of a diversity, equity, and inclusion
(“DEI”) program intended to bring minority writers onto a PBS television production. The
subject DEI policy had been mandated by the Public Broadcasting System (“PBS”) and was
36837.1
implemented and administered by Plaintiff at the direction of Defendants. Following the
implementation of the DEI Policy, Defendants attempted to disregard and minimize it and
retaliated against Mr. Schultz when he objected to issues surrounding the conduct of Defendants
concerning the DEI Policy and race. As a result of the extreme and inexcusable illegal conduct of
Defendants as herein alleged, Plaintiff has sustained material harm, detriment and damage.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff William Schultz is a resident of County of Los Angeles, State of
California. Plaintiff traveled to New York to meet with and to perform services on behalf of
Defendants.
3. Defendant Al Roker Entertainment is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein
was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
ostensible and purported principal place of business and offices in New York. At all relevant
times, Defendant Al Roker Entertainment was actively doing business in this Judicial District.
4. Defendant WHI is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business and offices in New York. At all relevant times, Defendant WHI was actively doing
business in this Judicial District Defendants, and each of them as alleged herein, wrongfully and
willfully breached a valid and subsisting written contract that they had induced Plaintiff to enter,
together with committing other wrongs surrounding leading to and surrounding the breach of
Contract.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereupon alleges that defendant Al Roker,
an individual is a resident of the State of New York.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that defendant Lisa
Tucker, an individual is a resident of the State of New York.
JURISDICTION
7. This action, as hereinafter more fully appears, is subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) based upon the amount in controversy being in excess of
36837.1 2
$75,000.00 and the diversity of the parties, which is brought about by the fact that Plaintiff is a
resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California; WHI and Al Roker Entertainment are
corporations organized under the laws of, and doing business in, the State of New York; and Al
Roker and Lisa Tucker as individual defendants are residents of the State of New York.
8. Venue of this action is properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because the wrongful course of conduct and injury to Plaintiff occurred in the Southern District
of New York. Namely, Plaintiff: (i) established his relationship with Defendants in New York;
(ii) met with Defendants in New York, (iii) performed work under his contract with Defendants
in New York, and (iv) the Agreement for between the parties calls for jurisdiction and venue in
New York, under the application of New York law.

ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS
9. Defendant WHI, Inc is Defendant Al Roker Entertainment and Defendant Al
Roker Entertainment is WHI. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at
all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendants WHI, Inc and Defendant Al Roker
Entertainment were, and are, the agents, servants, alter egos and/or employees of each of the
other Defendants, and all the things alleged to have been done by Defendants were done in the
capacity of and as agent, servant, alter ego and/or employee of and for the other Defendants, with
their knowledge approval, and ratification. Al Roker is the one hundred percent (100%) owner
and control person of Al Roker Entertainment and is the 100% owner of WHI.
10. On information and belief, Defendants Al Roker Entertainment and WHI, Inc
(jointly, the “Alter Egos”) are all alter egos, with one being an alter ego of the other. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that, at all times material hereto, the unity of
interest and ownership existed between Al Roker Entertainment, on the one hand, and WHI, the
Alter Ego, on the other hand, such that the individuality and separateness of Al Roker
Entertainment and WHI. ceased, and Al Roker Entertainment, and at all times mentioned
hereunder was, the alter ego of Defendant WHI.
11. Therefore, adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Al Roker
36837.1 3
Entertainment as an entity distinct from WHI as its Alter Egos would permit an abuse of the
corporate privilege and would sanction fraud or promote injustice, in that Alter Ego Al Roker
Entertainment might escape liability for the causes of action set out herein. In particular,
adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of WHI as an entity distinct from its Alter Al
Roker Entertainment would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege and produce an
inequitable result.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that during the course
of the relevant period, Defendant Al Roker Entertainment was WHI’s sole and exclusive
decision-making authority such that Al Roker Entertainment exercised ultimate, unfettered
domination and control over WHI’s finances and operations. Specifically, Defendant Al Roker
Entertainment’s sole, sovereign dominion and control over WHI’s finances and operations
resulted in a symbiotic relationship between both entities such that WHI operated as a shill and a
façade for the benefit of Al Roker Entertainment.
13. For example, Defendant Al Roker Entertainment “executives” dominated and
controlled the operations of WHI. In fact, the wrongful and pretextual “Cure notice” that was
received by Plaintiff as the antecedent to his firing was sent by and on behalf of Al Roker
Entertainment, on stationery of Al Roker Entertainment and signed by a senior “executive” of Al
Roker Entertainment.
14. There was no separation between the operations of WHI and Al Roker
Entertainment. Al Roker Entertainment exercised full dominion and control over WHI with the
executives of Al Roker Entertainment operating and running each and every aspect of WHI.
WHI was operated out of the same premises as Al Roker Entertainment. Al Roker Entertainment
and WHI were one and the same.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Al Roker and Al Roker Entertainment Retain Plaintiff to Produce the Program
15. Plaintiff William Schultz is a highly accomplished and acclaimed producer and
36837.1 4
executive in the very specialized world of production of animated television programing. Among
Plaintiff’s achievement are credits on highly successful programs such as “The Simpsons,”
“King of the Hill,” “Clifford the Big Red Dog,” “Ed, Edd & Eddy,” and many other long running
and award-winning animated TV series. Additionally, Plaintiff has been an executive in charge
of production/Supervising Producer at The Cartoon Network, where he was responsible for the
supervision of four simultaneous television productions and the development and start-up of the
network’s own Animation studio, in Burbank, California. Mr. Schultz also was an executive at
Marvel Animation Studios and at the acclaimed independent award-winning animation studio
known as “Film Roman” where he oversaw production of as many as ten series in production at
the same time —including such renowned programs as the Simpsons, King of the Hill, and
Garfield. The production of first-class animated programming is a rarified enterprise and there
are few executives of Mr. Schultz’s caliber who possess the creative, business and financial
abilities and skill sets to develop, sell, and produce high quality successful animated
programming.
16. In or about 2014, Mr. Schultz began working with Al Roker most well-known as
the weatherman on NBC’s “Today Show.” While Mr. Roker was an established media
personality, he was neither an experienced businessperson nor a producer, but wished to venture
into the production of an animated television series utilizing his eponymous “Al Roker
Entertainment” entity to produce a multimillion-dollar animated children’s program known as
“Weather Hunters” (the “Program”). Mr. Roker had no prior experience with producing an
animated program, or any program of the scope and nature of the instant Program. (Prior to
becoming involved in this endeavor, Al Roker Entertainment produced some industrial content,
and a few semi-mainstream reality type shows, but no scripted series or animated series and none
where he was in charge of the script writing or complex deficit financing of proprietary
programming.)
17. Because Al Roker had limited experience in this type of enterprise and producing
activities as a proprietary network series animation producer he looked to the skill and expertise
36837.1 5
of Mr. Schultz to guide and lead the entire process—from Mr. Roker’s three- to four-page draft
concept ultimately to the 40 half-hour Season one episodes eventually ordered by PBS. Mr.
Schultz remained committed to, seeing through the development, production of a pilot and
greenlighting the full production of the Program for nine years, while receiving virtually no
upfront compensation. Mr. Schultz’s remained dedicated to achieving this production
commitment—mostly because of his passion for what the Program could be.
18. Mr. Schultz conceived, conceptualized, and created the entire business plan for
the Program. Mr. Schultz was indispensable in the creation of the Program and worked tirelessly
to create a financial plan where one hundred percent (100%) of the ownership of the Program
would be retained under the control and ownership of Al Roker, and whereby Al Roker is able to
cover almost 100% of the cost of production with outside financing and not having to put hardly
any money at all into the Program. Mr. Schultz created a model which will greatly enrich Al
Roker.
19. In 2018, with the continued significant efforts of Mr. Schultz, after almost five
years of program bible and pilot script development, a deal was finally negotiated with PBS
whereunder PBS contributed $350,000 to a pilot that was budgeted at roughly $800,000. The
pilot that was produced, by all accounts, achieved an unprecedented enthusiasm in the
community and was considered to be a resounding success. Mr. Schultz leveraged all his
substantial experience and industry goodwill to assemble all the key elements to the project: the
best of the best: writers, directors, designers, animators, and music postproduction experts. The
pilot received a material deficit investment from everyone that worked on it and was produced as
a first-class broadcast quality 11-minute pilot—far exceeding the “development” production
quality standards contractually required by PBS without requiring additional investment from
Mr. Roker. The pilot research test audience brought on board to review the program by PBS
scored the pilot extremely enthusiastically— with the reaction in the research group and among
PBS staff as total enthusiasm for how the show could be presented and perform on PBS Kids.
20. The Program was sold to the Public Broadcasting System (“PBS”) which
36837.1 6
committed to contribute a significant portion of the multi-million-dollar production budget for
the development and production of the First Season with an order for an initial forty (40) half
hour episodes of the Program. Mr. Schultz was instrumental in the creation of the creative and
business elements of the Program, including the financial model, the episodic pattern budgets,
and establishment of all of the highly specific and unique animated series work that was
necessary in the development and production of such a high-quality Program.
21. From approximately 2014 until approximately mid-2022 Mr. Schultz worked on
the Program with Tracie Brennan, the head of Al Roker Entertainment’s production company,
with Ms. Brennan representing and exercising all approvals on behalf of the production
company. The relationship between Mr. Schultz and Ms. Brennan was professional, respectful,
and highly productive. Al Roker in his capacity as the CEO of Al Roker Productions exercised
his right and authority to make final decisions on material issues. Mr. Roker himself only did
enough to cause PBS to believe that he was involved in the Production in return for their massive
financial and programming schedule commitment. – During the five years of development and
production, prior to the full series greenlight, Ms. Brennan and Mr. Schultz had a mutually
respected interpersonal relationship. Ms. Brennan consistently achieved consensus with Mr.
Schultz and trusted his judgement with respect to most of the production decisions – with the two
transparently discussing and mutually consenting on almost all material matters.
22. Quite unfortunately, Ms. Brennan became ill during 2020 and was ultimately
unable to continue in her role in the production. In response to this unfortunate situation, Mr.
Roker decided to try and replace Ms. Brennan, who had now gained significant cumulative
firsthand, personal and foundational experience, knowledge and understanding of the entire
production plan. Mr. Schultz worked almost exclusively with Ms. Brennan representing the
production company. Mr. Roker ultimately replaced Ms. Brennan almost right at the beginning
of the series production with Lisa Tucker, as Al Roker Entertainment’s Senior Vice President
and Caren Franklin, Director of Finance and Business Affairs. Neither of these individuals
possessed the experience needed to take over the significant leadership roles on the production,
36837.1 7
representing Al Roker Entertainment in place of Ms. Brennan.
23. Mr. Roker deferred authority over finance and business on the production to
Caren Franklin, his long serving, but part-time bookkeeper, with no real knowledge of the
project, as all the development and pre-production was handled exclusively by Ms. Brennan. Ms.
Franklin processed invoices once approved. In addition, Ms. Franklin had never headed any real
production–and certainly not any that were anything like the specific and unique aspects of an
animated series or scripted series television production of this scope. She always been
subordinate to Ms. Brennan, certainly on this project and most likely all of the projects in which
Al Roker Entertainment was involved.
24. As Ms. Brennan became unable to maintain her role, Mr. Roker deferred her
involvement to Lisa Tucker, a reality-show Producer the company had brought on to help with
development of other projects. Ms. Tucker was a live action reality show producer without any
animation credits or even any real scripted series producing experience. In assigning Ms. Tucker
to fill in for Ms. Brennan, Ms. Tucker found herself charged with overseeing the production of
the brand new animated series Program, and in effect the management and expenditure of the
millions and millions of dollars provided by PBS and other third party financiers, according to a
budget and production finance plan that she had no knowledge of and in fact, frequently
complained she did not understand. With Mr. Roker’s introduction of the inexperienced team of
Mses. Franklin and Tucker in charge of the production for Al Roker Entertainment matters could
not possibly go well, and of course they didn’t go well at all.
25. The harsh, abrasive, and condescending management style of both Franklin and
Tucker did not translate well to the oversight of a creative enterprise staffed by over one hundred
highly skilled and experienced animation artists. Further, the lack of any experience in animation
on the part of Franklin and Tucker was highly problematic because although Franklin and Tucker
were the executives in charge of Al Roker Productions and therefore were in charge of many
decisions affecting the day to day production of the Show, they lacked basic understanding of the
collaborative ecosystem necessary to achieve a high quality animated production, when faced
36837.1 8
with any of the challenges to be expected on the 130 week production schedule designed to
safeguard PBS’s investment in and the network’s expectations for the Program.
26. The lack of experience of Franklin and Tucker was generally problematic for the
viability of the Program, but was especially problematic for Mr. Schultz, as a professionally-
acclaimed, experienced and commercially-successful producer of animated television—and also
with many others on the team. Franklin and Tucker’s lack of fundamental understanding of the
production of an animated television series such as the Program by caused a degree of conflict
not typical in the experience of Mr. Schultz on the project with the company. They were each
quite defensive and insecure in dealing with the project, apparently threatened by Mr. Schultz’s
evident experience and expertise in animated tv series production and finance. This hostility
manifested itself in petty personal attacks, micro-aggressions and the general denigration and
diminishment of Mr. Schultz at the hands of Franklin and Tucker. All the while Al Roker, who
could exercise full control over and resolve the situation did nothing to intercede. Ultimately, the
matter came to a head leading to the pretextual termination of Mr. Schultz.

The Services Agreement between WHI and the Plaintiff
27. On January 9, 2023, WHI and Home Plate Entertainment Company entered into a
Services Agreement (the “Agreement’). A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached as
Exhibit “A”.
28. Weather Hunters, Inc was an empty shell of an entity that was a complete alter
ego of Al Roker Entertainment. Home Plate Entertainment was a loan-out entity providing the
services of Mr. Schultz. Mr. Schultz personally signed an inducement and guarantee to the
Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement William Schultz was to provide services as
an Executive Producer, on a non-exclusive basis. Under the agreement Schultz was to consult
with and help “Company” (WHI) manage all creative and business elements of the Series (i.e.
“Weather Hunters”).
29. In return, Mr. Schultz, in addition to other compensation, would receive: (1) a flat
fee of $544,500, paid in installments and increasing by 3% for each series order after the initial
36837.1 9
40 episode order; (2) a “Participation Fee” equal to 25% of WHI’s net revenue as defined in the
Agreement; and (3) an “Executive Producer” and “Creative Development” credit.
30. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Schultz has standing to enforce the Services
Agreement as an intended third-party beneficiary because the Service Agreement was binding on
the parties and Mr. Schultz’s benefit from the agreement was direct rather than incidental.
PBS’s Mandatory DEI Initiative
31. Surprisingly, here, where the control person is Al Roker, a leading African
American media personality and the Program concept is focused on an African American Family
and was inclusively developed for PBS’s importantly diverse children’s audience, the issue that
doomed Mr. Schultz and led to his wrongful termination and the wholesale breach of contract
was the issue of racial diversity—specifically Defendants’ unjustified antipathy towards
instituting PBS’s mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policies . One would
believe that that there would be appropriate sensitivity concerning issues relating to race and
African Americans. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
32. The interpersonal dynamic was this: Mr. Schultz believes in diversity and racial
inclusion. Franklin and Tucker both Caucasian and despite wishing to appear supportive of the
diversity policy, demonstrated surprisingly low tolerance or appreciation for or interest in
supporting matters of diversity and racial inclusion with regard to the production. Al Roker the
boss, proved himself unwilling to support the proper decisions in adherence to this issue as it was
brought before him. The DEI policy which Defendants callously disregarded was justifiably
rooted in the very real and wide-spread social upheaval throughout the country and indeed, the
world, in the aftermath of prominent murders of African Americans at the hands of police. This
social awakening, particularly following the murder of George Floyd was a transformative event
for the country generally, and for PBS in particular. Like many leading broadcasters in our
Country, PBS recognized and made strong efforts to address that the issue of lack of diversity on
both sides of the camera was an issue that needed to be reckoned with throughout the planned
36837.1 10
production of all of its Children’s Programming. That was especially true for a show primarily
targeted at African American and BIPOC families and their children such as the Program was.
33. Mr. Schultz consistently maintained a vision for staffing and producing the
Program with a diverse group of creators and artists and was fully cooperative when PBS took
this one step further and made it an absolute contractual mandate as a condition of greenlighting
the full production. PBS created a DEI policy and made it a contractual requirement for all of its
new children’s programs. However, rather than treating the DEI policy as the mandatory and
important policy it was meant to be, Franklin and Tucker, who had been given total authority
over the Project by Al Roker Entertainment, treated the DEI Policy as discretionary and an
obstacle to be circumvented to produce the show. This difference of opinion was at the core of
much of the antagonistic treatment heaped upon Mr. Schultz by these two executives.
34. To Mr. Schultz the PBS mandated DEI policy created a genuine and important
opportunity to recruit, develop and work with a diverse group of newly empowered artists,
creators and production staff and to embrace the challenge that the PBS mandated DEI policy
represented. Mr. Schultz believed that the Program had to embrace the DEI initiative required by
the network and its financiers, and also to appreciate the opportunity. The DEI policy that was
developed by PBS and a plan was implemented by Mr. Schultz and the team he was assembling
– and it allowed an opportunity for a historically marginalized group of animation professionals
to have a greater opportunity to take important seats at the table to tell its story and speak to the
audience on the PBS Kids network.
35. Franklin and Tucker failed to embrace what Mr. Schultz viewed as a wonderful
opportunity to provide an under-represented historically marginalized Class of people the
opportunities, that heretofore were only reserved for the historically dominant white Hollywood
animation industry. In not supporting the initiative fully, and instead looking to appear to satisfy
the plan, the executives only reinforced a perpetual form of racism that was insidious.
36. Mr. Schultz believed that for the Program to truly embrace PBS’s mandated DEI
policy, the production team was morally obligated to go to the extra lengths and efforts to find
36837.1 11
and amplify diverse “new voices.” Indeed, these new voices were exactly what DEI is all about.
Creating opportunities for these new voices was clearly the mantra of the Program under Mr.
Schultz. Obviously, finding “new” voices sometimes meant less experienced—though not less
qualified or talented—voices. In any event, PBS (including its sister affiliated company, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting [“CPB”]) was supplying approximately 70% of the
financing for the project -with the stipulation that the Show would adhere to the approved DEI
plan, which was designed to support recruiting, developing, mentoring and working with “new
voices”, in accordance with the approved DEI Plan (as developed by the Show, presented to PBS
and approved by PBS Kids). The plan was also circulated widely among the members of the
production team and attached to contracts of all parties.
37. Unfortunately, Franklin and Tucker did not support or have any real tolerance for
the PBS mandated DEI Policy; they did not respect what Mr. Schultz had put in place or what he
advocated for daily. Disingenuously, Franklin and Tucker parroted the language of DEI to those
on the outside of the production but in reality, and behind the scenes, the real story was the
opposite. They saw the use of “BIPOC” individuals as a handicap or unwelcome obstacle that
could be disregarded if necessary and be evaded or overcome—even if it meant using
underhanded and deceptive tactics. Further, management at Al Roker Entertainment did not see
the PBS DEI mandate as a requirement: It was a box to be checked in the most expedient manner
possible. Management of Al Roker Entertainment never appreciated or embraced the opportunity
the plan afforded those it was intended to benefit.
38. Franklin and Tucker often saw the DEI policy as an impediment to business as
usual, and they endeavored to minimize efforts to embrace it and supported and participated with
those who looked for ways to evade it. They went so far as to attempt to coerce Jerry Brice, the
African-American supervising producer, who wrote the PBS- approved DEI plan and had been
specifically charged with deepening the production’s relationships in the African-American
community, to cosign their “workarounds” so that the production could just hire white writers,
and not have to work with “BIPOC” writers, who they falsely claimed were not acceptable. But
36837.1 12
Mr. Brice resisted and refused to bend to management’s offensive demands, so he too faced their
wrath and was reprimanded. Management of Al Roker Entertainment as actively and consistently
embodied in Tucker and Franklin, and ratified by Mr. Roker, worked to undermine the DEI
Policy, clearly missed the point of DEI and also did not appreciate how the Show benefitted
authentically and creatively from the prominence of the PBS mandate. Mr. Schultz (along with
other allies he had recruited were the ones at the table that truly embraced the opportunity and
requirement of PBS’s reinvigorated DEI policy. The active antagonism of Tucker and Franklin
toward Mr. Schultz and their attempts to undermine Mr. Schultz’s authority and management
solutions, including strong adherence to the policy created conflict with Mr. Schultz, a conflict
that proximately led to the pretextual and wrongful firing of Mr. Schultz and the breach of his
Agreement. Mr. Schultz met with Al Roker to inform him of the denigration of the DEI policy
by the management of Al Roker Entertainment and sought his intervention and his support.
However, Al Roker refused to provide any support to Mr. Schultz or to preserve the compliance
and sanctity of the PBS-mandated DEI policy.
39. Defendants’ wholesale abrogation of the DEI policy eventually came to an ugly
head sealing the fate of Mr. Schultz. During a story meeting on or about August 15th, 2023,
conducted remotely via Zoom, the Program’s story editor, enabled and supported by Al Roker
Entertainment management, with no truthful justification claimed that the Production simply
could not meet the production schedule if “BIPOC” writers were used to write the stories. He
said that the BIPOC writers “sucked” and were inexperienced. And because of that, in order to
meet the schedule, he would need to hire “experienced non-BIPOC writers”. Sadly, this
ridiculous and often repeated fallacy is the foundation of the often-racist staffing policies that
have plagued the entertainment industry for years and ironically is the basis for the requirement
of the existence of the DEI policy itself. Instead of giving the chances to BIPOC writers as had
been the plan, the story editor, repeating a strategy previously advocated and backed by Al Roker
Entertainment management in writing, wanted to have “non-BIPOC” writers write the stories,
and then bring on a “BIPOC” writer and after the stories/episodes [were] shaped, they could be
36837.1 13
“hand[ed] off to BIPOC writers”. This was a deceptive and cynical tactic to give the false
appearance of diversity in writing and show “numbers” supporting diversity while side-stepping
the effort to recruit, develop and work with BIPOC writers he wrongly and offensively
characterized as less capable. He and Defendants completely missed the point and, to add insult
to injury, the writing he commissioned not only was no better than that of BIPOC writers (some
of the best scripts were from the “new voices”) but further, showed a lack of sensitivity to the
cultural authenticity which was one of the motives for DEI and a major selling point of the
Program.
40. Mr. Schultz was against this deceptive and offensive tactic because not only did it
deprive the show of highly valued authenticity, but it also violated exactly what the DEI policy
was all about. PBS and Mr. Schultz and many others on the production appreciated that the
critically important authenticity of the Program’s stories should come from the authentic lived
experience of BIPOC writers. The notion of “nothing about us without us” – a phrase used to
underscore much of the meaning and motivation for enacting diversity policies was being
blatantly, violated, and with the full support of Al Roker Entertainment, and Mr. Roker’s silent
ratification. This situation led to a verbally heated confrontation during the story meeting.
41. The meeting initially proceeded calmly but the production staff exchanged some
harsh words and a third-party called out Tucker (who was not actually in the meeting) and the
show’s non-writing executive producer (“NWEP”) as “two white women controlling a black
show” after the story editor said that “BIPOC writers suck” and therefore they could not write
the premises or outlines. Mr. Schultz was upset and offended by this racist ideology as were
many others on the production staff. The words themselves greatly offended Mr. Schultz, but the
fact that the story editor felt comfortable voicing such an offensive screed within the
environment of acceptance Mr. Schultz strove so hard to create within the production team hurt
Mr. Schultz, who had led implementation of PBS’s mandatory DEI policy, to his core and he
could not in good conscience affirm such egregious conduct by his silence.
Defendants Wrongfully Terminate Mr. Schultz
36837.1 14
42. In or about early September 2023, Defendants further enflamed the DEI situation
when Tucker and Franklin reprimanded an African-American producer on the Program critical of
Defendants evisceration of the DEI policy—blaming him entirely for rising tension on the
production, and backing the incredibly racist and false statement by the Program’s story editor
that “BIPOC writers suck.” Mr. Schultz steadfastly stood by the need for Al Roker Entertainment
and WHI to honor PBS’s DEI policy and commitments and WHI’s contractual agreement to do
the same. Mr. Schultz also vocally and consistently objected to the scapegoating of the African
American supervising producer on the Program. Unfortunately, Mr. Schultz’s unequivocal and
unwavering stance spelled the end for Mr. Schultz. Because Mr. Schultz complained about
racism and racial slurs and voiced his disagreement with the dismantling of the DEI policy Mr.
Schultz was targeted by Al Roker Entertainment, Franklin and Tucker.
43. Mr. Schultz sympathized with and defended the DEI policy and made that fact
known to Al Roker, Tucker and Franklin, and anyone on the production team who would listen.
But Al Roker did nothing to bring Tucker and Franklin in line and from then on it became clear
that Tucker and Franklin were looking for any way to push Mr. Schultz out of the project he had
shepherded and championed for nearly a decade. In time Mr. Schultz was served with a
pretextual, bad faith notice to cure fabricated contractual breaches which were clearly styled so
as not to be curable. Based on these fabrications, Al Roker Entertainment subsequently
suspended Mr. Schultz and then terminated him. This lawsuit followed.
44. On February 22, 2024, Al Roker Entertainment (on the Stationery of Al Roker
Entertainment) delivered a letter (the “2/22/24 Letter”) to Mr. Schultz erroneously styled as a
“cure notice” pursuant to Section 8 of the Service Agreement. The Letter signed by Lisa Tucker
in her capacity of SVP Development and Production at Al Roker Entertainment, references the
Agreement and purports to seek a cure for the alleged and purported breaches on the part of Mr.
Schultz. The eight enumerated breaches by Mr. Schultz were spurious, fabricated, made in bad
faith and stood only as a pretext for the termination of Mr. Schultz and the breach of the
Agreement. A true and correct copy of the pretextual Cure Notice is set forth as Exhibit “B”.
36837.1 15
45. On March 7, 2024, counsel for Mr. Schultz responded to the bad faith Cure
Notice by tendering a detailed refutation of each and every of the fabricated alleged breaches by
him. A true and correct copy of the March 7, 2024, refutation by Plaintiff’s counsel to Lisa
Tucker, Senior Vice President of Al Roker Entertainment is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
46. On March 9, 2024, counsel for Mr. Schultz wrote again to Lisa Tucker, Senior
Vice President at Al Roker Entertainment advising that the conduct of Al Roker Entertainment
and WHI was causing great damage to Mr. Schultz and seeking a prompt conclusion of this
matter. A true and correct copy of the March 9, 2024, letter is attached as Exhibit “D”.
47. On March 10, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff received notice from Counsel for
Defendants that Mr. Schultz was being terminated (and his contract was being breached) based
upon the manufactured pretextual grounds set forth in the Cure Notice. A true and correct copy
of the letter of March 10, 2024, is set forth as Exhibit “E’.
48. On March 28, 2024, Counsel for Plaintiff received a Notice of Termination of the
Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Termination is set forth as Exhibit “F”.
With this notice of Termination defendants concluded their illegal scheme to wrongfully
terminate Plaintiff and to illegally breach the Agreement. The Termination was based on the
baseless and manufactured grounds that were set forth in the Notice For Cure.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of New York City Human Rights Law ( N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–101 et seq.)
(Against All Defendants)
49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each
and every preceding paragraph above as though fully set forth herein.
50. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(1)(a), “[i]t shall be an unlawful
discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the
actual or perceived…race… color, national origin, gender…immigration or citizenship status of
36837.1 16
any person: (1) To represent that any employment or position is not available when in fact it is
available; (2) To refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such
person; or (3) To discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or
privileges of employment.”
51. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(6) “It shall be an unlawful
discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of
the acts forbidden under this chapter, or to attempt to do so.”
52. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(7) “[i]t shall be an unlawful

discriminatory practice for any person engaged in any activity to which this chapter applies to
retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any person because such person has (i) opposed
any practice forbidden under this chapter[.]”
53. As alleged above, Defendants unlawfully sought to evade PBS’s mandatory DEI
policy to exclude BIPOC persons from participating in the production of the Program and
attempted to force Plaintiff to assist in such unlawful discriminatory practices. And, as a result of
Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in such practices and vocal objection to such unlawful
discriminatory practices, Plaintiff’s services for Defendants were unlawfully terminated.
54. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–402(a) and 8-120, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief, damages, including punitive damages, and such other types of relief as are specified in
subdivision a of section 8-120 including but not limited to hiring, reinstatement or upgrading of
employment; the award of back pay and front pay; payment of compensatory damages; and
payment of the Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs.
55. Defendants acted with oppression, intent, wantonness and malice and as such
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages to punish Defendants and each
of them for their wrongful conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct,
Plaintiff has been directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less $10 million
together with reimbursable costs according to proof plus interest, fees and costs at the maximum
legal rate thereon.
36837.1 17
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of New York State Human Rights Law (N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq.)
57. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(e) it is unlawful “[f]or any employer, labor
organization or employment agency to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any
person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden under this article or because he or
she has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this article.”
58. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 296-d “[a]n employer may be held liable to a non-
employee who is a contractor, subcontractor, vendor, consultant or other person providing
services pursuant to a contract in the workplace or who is an employee of such contractor,
subcontractor, vendor, consultant or other person providing services pursuant to a contract in the
workplace, with respect to an unlawful discriminatory practice, when the employer, its agents or
supervisors knew or should have known that such non-employee was subjected to an unlawful
discriminatory practice in the employer's workplace, and the employer failed to take immediate
and appropriate corrective action.”
59. As alleged extensively above, Plaintiff disclosed to his Defendant supervisors
Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory attempts to evade PBS’s mandatory DEI policy and
refused to assist Defendants in implementing these unlawful actions. And, as a result, Plaintiff
was unlawfully terminated by Defendants.
60. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297, Plaintiff seeks damages, including, punitive
damages, and such other remedies as may be appropriate, including hiring, reinstatement or
upgrading of employment; the award of back pay and front pay; payment of compensatory
damages; and payment of the Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs
and any available civil fines and penalties.
36837.1 18
Plaintiff has been directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10
million together with reimbursable costs according to proof plus interest, and costs at the
maximum legal rate thereon.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract
(Against Defendant WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment)
62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
each and every preceding paragraph above as though fully set forth herein.
63. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff and WHI entered into a binding agreement (the
“Agreement”) as described herein above.
64. On February 22, 2024, Defendants Al Roker Entertainment and WHI sent
Plaintiff a writing purported to be a cure notice regarding alleged failures of performance on the
part of Plaintiff. The cure notice written on the stationery of Al Roker Entertainment and signed
by an executive of Al Roker Entertainment was a pretextual sham.
65. On March 28, 2024, Defendant WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment
breached the Agreement by tendering a notice of termination.
66. Plaintiff performed all of his obligations under the agreement, and any obligations
not performed by Plaintiff were excused due to Defendants’ nonperformance. Plaintiff timely did
all acts necessary to fulfill the contract entered into with WHI.
67. The alter-ego allegations stated above are expressly incorporated herein. As alter
egos, Defendant Al Roker Entertainment is fully liable for the debts, obligations and liabilities of
WHI. Notably, WHI was used as a fraudulent shill to exploit the services from unwary
contractors such as Plaintiff.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of the contract,
36837.1 19
Plaintiff has been directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
(Against Al Roker Entertainment and its Alter Ego WHI)
70. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with WHI and its Alter
Ego Al Roker Productions. Implied in the agreement entered into between Plaintiff and
Defendants is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing under which Defendant WHI and its
Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment would not take action or fail to take action that would
undermine the benefits of the Agreement to Plaintiff.
71. Defendant WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment undermined such
benefits owed to Plaintiff by the acts and omissions alleged above, by wrongfully and illegally
terminating the Agreement without cause, excuse or justification.
72. As a result, dishonest conduct of WHI and Al Roker Entertainment and the
manner in which it intentionally took of unfair advantage of Plaintiff’s trust, which included the
illegal manufacturing of pretextual claims to attempt to justify the termination of the Agreement,
73. Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof but in an amount not less than $10
million.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract
(Against Defendants WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment)
36837.1 20
75. This Cause of Action is pled as an alternative to the First Cause of Action for
breach of contract. Based upon the acts and conduct of the parties, and the surrounding
circumstances, Defendant WHI entered into an implied-in-fact agreement with Plaintiff related to
services to be provided by Plaintiff hereunder.
76. The existence of the implied contract was manifested by the parties’ clear
respective conduct and WHI’s express representations made by and through its agents. The
obligation of WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment hereunder arises from the mutual
agreement between Plaintiff and WHI and the clear promises and expressions of intent to
promise expressed by WHI.
77. Pursuant to the material terms of the implied-in-fact contract, Plaintiff was to
provide services to Defendant WHI.
78. Plaintiff did all, or substantially all, of what she was required to do under the
terms of the parties’ agreement, except to the extent that such terms and conditions to be
performed by Plaintiff were excused or waived.
79. WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment breached the parties’ implied
agreement by, among other things, attempting to abruptly and erroneously terminate the implied
agreement between the Plaintiff and WHI.
80. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been
directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10 million.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Promissory Estoppel
(Against WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment)
81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
each and every preceding paragraph above as though fully set forth herein.
82. As more fully alleged hereinabove, Defendant WHI entered into a written contract
36837.1 21
with Plaintiff which it terminated and thereby breached. Prior to the breach of contract, the
Defendants repeatedly and affirmatively promised and caused Plaintiff to believe, understand,
and rely on the fact that a valid and enduring contract had been entered into.
83. Defendant WHI and Al Roker Entertainment manufactured an extraordinary
circumstance in this situation by acting with a crude retaliatory motive after Plaintiff objected to
the destruction of the PBS mandated DEI policy at the production of the Program. Plaintiff acted
as a whistle blower in complaining about serious racial issues that existed at the production.
84. From that time on, without justification, cause, or excuse, Defendants WHI and
Al Roker Entertainment targeted, harassed and ultimately terminated Plaintiff, and, in addition,
breached, and wrongfully terminated the contract, thereby breaching the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. All of Defendants’ actions taken together create an exceptional case, an
extraordinary circumstance, and a violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
85. This is a situation where justice requires that the clear and manifest wrong that
has taken place be abated, and that an estoppel be invoked against the Defendants.
86. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendants WHI and Al Roker Entertainment made
clear and express promises to Plaintiff in a written agreement with regard to the compensation
that Plaintiff would receive in exchange for the services that Plaintiff provided.
87. Plaintiff relied on the promise made by Defendants and performed services on
behalf of Defendant WHI that he would be fully compensated as provided in the January 9, 2023,
Agreement.
88. Because of Defendants’ promises and Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance thereupon,
Plaintiff suffered substantial detriments.
89. Defendant WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment breached its agreement
with Plaintiff and terminated its contract with Plaintiff.
90. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, as is herein alleged, Defendants stand in
breach of their obligations to Plaintiff and should be estopped from denying the of a contract and
must be estopped from not fully performing each and every obligation owed to Plaintiff.
36837.1 22
91. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been
directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10 million together with
reimbursable costs according to proof plus interest, and costs at the maximum legal rate thereon.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Quantum Meruit
(Against WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment)
93. As alleged above, Plaintiff provided his time and services to Defendants in good
faith and pursuant to the terms of the January 2023 Agreement. The time and effort that was
provided by Plaintiff on behalf of Defendants is valuable and a material portion of the
compensation was founded in the participation in Net Profits in the Agreement that Defendants
have now terminated.
94. Plaintiff provided these services to Defendants with the expectation that that
Defendant would be a profit participant under the terms of the Agreement, and Defendant
accepted Plaintiff’s performance of those service with full knowledge and expectation of
Plaintiff’s expectation that she would be compensated.
95. Defendants in terminating the Agreement have terminated Plaintiff’s right to be
fully compensated Plaintiff for the time and effort that he expended under the January 2023
Agreement and thereby owe Plaintiff for the reasonable value of his services.
96. The alter-ego allegations stated hereinabove are expressly incorporated herein. As
alter egos, WHI, and Al Roker Entertainment are liable for the debts of WHI.
97. As a result of the acts complained of herein, Plaintiff has been damaged in an
amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10 million.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unjust Enrichment
(Against Defendant WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment)
36837.1 23
99. In the event Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy provided by law, Plaintiff seeks
equitable relief to remedy Defendant’s unjust enrichment at Plaintiff’s expense.
100. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants, and each of them, have been unjustly
enriched by their unlawful, inequitable, and wrongful conduct alleged herein, including, but not
limited to, the Breach of Contract and Promissory Fraud.
101. As a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, Plaintiff was impoverished, and
Defendants were enriched at Plaintiff’s expense. Specifically, Plaintiff was impoverished by his
provision of services pursuant to the contract between the parties, for which Defendants, absent
any justification, wrongfully terminated.
102. As such, it would be an inequitable and unjust result if Defendants were permitted
to retain the benefit of Plaintiff’s provision of services without paying the rightful compensation
owed to Plaintiff under the contract.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
105. Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that was intended to
cause Plaintiff to sustain severe emotional distress or which was done in conscious disregard of
the harm that the conduct was causing to Plaintiff.
106. Defendant Al Roker as the head of Al Roker Entertainment and Lisa Tucker in
her capacity of Senior Vice President of Al Roker Entertainment were in a position of superiority
over Plaintiff. In such capacity, Defendants Roker and Tucker exerted power and control over
36837.1 24
Plaintiff. In exercising such power and control, Defendant Roker and Tucker targeted and
attempted to psychologically dominate and control Plaintiff in retaliation for his vocal opposition
to the dismantling of the PBS-mandated DEI policy.
107. In terminating the agreement with Plaintiff without any cause or justification
after Plaintiff had performed services for WHI and Al Roker Entertainment, Defendants caused
Plaintiff to sustain great emotional distress.
108. Further, the actions of Defendants WHI and its Alter Ego Al Roker Entertainment
to deny any obligation to Plaintiff after Plaintiff had performed services on behalf of WHI has
caused Plaintiff to sustain great and substantial emotional distress.
109. Defendants’ acts were done wantonly, maliciously, oppressively, deliberately,
with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and the representations that
Defendants made to her, in order to enrich Defendants. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover
an award of punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing Defendants,
which amount is to be determined according to proof.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence and Failure to Supervise and Control
(Against Defendant Al Roker)
112. Roker controlled WHI and Al Roker Entertainment. At all times alleged herein,
Roker was in a position of control and authority over its Senior Vice President Lisa Tucker and
Caren Franklin.
113. As the person and entity in control of WHI and in control of Tucker and Franklin
had a duty and obligation to supervise and control the actions of the Tucker and Franklin in his
capacity as CEO of Al Roker Entertainment and otherwise.
36837.1 25
114. Defendant Roker breached his duty of care and failed to adequately supervise the
activities of Tucker and Franklin.
115. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Roker is responsible for the illegal
conduct of Tucker and Franklin as alleged hereunder.
116. As the proximate result of the of the conduct by Roker, Plaintiff sustained
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $10 million.
.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interferences with Contract
(Against Al Roker Entertainment)
and every preceding paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. As an alternative theory of
Recovery in the event that Al Roker Entertainment is found not to have Alter Ego liability:
118. Plaintiff entered into a valid and subsisting contract with WHI.
119. Al Roker Entertainment interfered with the Contract between Plaintiff and WHI
and failed and refused to allow the performance of the Contract between Plaintiff and WHI and
Plaintiff and did not allow performance of the contract by WHI.
120. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Al Roker
Entertainment caused Lisa Tucker to take actions to terminate the Agreement between Plaintiff
and WHI.
121. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the misconduct
by Al Roker Entertainment, as alleged herein, was intended by Al Roker Entertainment to cheat,
was despicable conduct by Al Roker Entertainment with a willful and conscious disregard of the
rights and interests of Plaintiff, and/or subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in
conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests such as to constitute malice, oppression, or
fraud, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make
an example of Defendant Al Roker Entertainment.
36837.1 26
122. Defendant Al Roker Entertainment, acted with oppression, intent and malice and
as such Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages to punish Defendants
and each of them for their wrongful conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’
conduct, Plaintiff has been directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less $10
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of New York State Whistleblower Statute (New York Labor Code Section 740)
124. New York Labor Code Section 740(2) provides that “[a]n employer shall not take
any retaliatory action against an employee, whether or not within the scope of the employee's job
duties, because such employee does any of the following:
(a) discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity,
policy or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of
law, rule or regulation or that the employee reasonably believes poses a substantial and
specific danger to the public health or safety;
(b) provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an
investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such activity, policy or practice by such
employer; or
(c) objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy or practice.
125. Pursuant to New York Labor Code Section 740(1)(a), “employee” includes
independent contractors such as Plaintiff.
126. Here, as alleged extensively above, Plaintiff disclosed to his Defendant
supervisors Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory attempts to evade PBS’s mandatory DEI
policy and refused to assist Defendants in implementing these unlawful actions. And, as a result,
36837.1 27
Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated by Defendants.
127. Pursuant to New York Labor Code Section 740(5)(a-g) Plaintiff thus seeks an
injunction to restrain continued violation of Section 740; the reinstatement to the same position
held before the retaliatory action, or to an equivalent position, or front pay in lieu thereof; the
reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights; the compensation for lost wages,
benefits and other remuneration; the payment by the employer of reasonable costs,
disbursements, and attorney's fees; a civil penalty of an amount not to exceed ten thousand
dollars; and the payment by the employer of punitive damages.
Plaintiff has been directly damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less $10 million
together with reimbursable costs according to proof plus interest, and costs at the maximum legal
rate thereon.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
A. For judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, and in favor of the
Plaintiff for the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of each of the
Defendants’ wrongful conduct as alleged herein in an amount to be determined at time of trial,
but in any event not less than $10 million;
B. For actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not
less than $10 million;
C. For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial but in no event less
than $10 million;
36837.1 28
D. For special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
E. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of
trial;
F. For attorney’s fees and costs as permitted by applicable law;
G. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and,
H. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
36837.1 29
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury with respect to all issues properly triable by jury.
DATED: April 15, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,
FROST LLP
CHRISTOPHER L. FROST*
JOHN D. MAATTA*
OHIA AMADI *
ZACH WEST*
JEFFREY BOGERT*
PETER POTTIER
FROST, LLP
10 Confucius Plaza #15K

New York, NY 10002
10960 WIlshire Blvd.

Ste. 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90024
john@frostllp.com
ohia@frostllp.com
zach@frostllp.com
jeff@frostllp.com
peter@frostllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff William “Bill” Schultz

*Petition for Pro Hac Vice admission in
process
36837.1 30
Case 1:24-cv-02852 Document 1-1 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 37
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT (the Agreement) is made as of January 9, 2023 (the

Effective Date), by and between WeatherHunters, Inc. ("Company"), whose business office is
located at 1357 Broadway, Suite 529, New York, NY 10018, and Home Plate Entertainment
Company (Lender) for the services of Bill Schultz (Schultz,), having its address at 302 Bell
Canyon Road, Bell Canyon, CA 91307.
WHEREAS the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS or the Network'') has commissioned
Company to produce an animated childrens television series currently entitled "Weather Hunters"
(the Program" or the "Series") which is based on an original concept created by Al Roker (the
Property" or the IP); and
WHEREAS Company wishes to engage the services of Lender to provide the services of
Schultz to executive produce and manage the production of the Series.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants,

conditions and agreements hereinafter contained, hereby agree as follows:
1. Services. Company hereby engages Lender to provide the services of Schultz to

Company to perform first-class executive producer services, on a non-exclusive, first-priority, no-
material-interference, in-person basis during the pre-production, production, and post-production of
the Series (as further set out below). It is of the essence to this Agreement that Schultz provides in-
person services throughout the production of any season for which Schultz is engaged. The services
shall be provided by Schultz in accordance with a reasonable schedule, as provided by Network or
Company. Lender shall make Schultz available to consult with and help Company manage all
creative and business elements of the Series, including but not limited to drafting the budget and the
production schedule, interfacing with the Network, sourcing and hiring producers, writers, crew
members, voice talent, animators and animation studios, composers and any other necessary
personnel and vendors and all other services necessary to produce and deliver a first-class animated
series (collectively referred to herein as the Services). Company shall have final decision and
control over all decisions affecting the Series and shall be a signatory to all contracts made for the
Series.
2. Term. Schultz shall, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, produce
and deliver to Network forty (40) thirty-minute (30:00) episodes of the Program in accordance with
PBSs initial series order (the Initial Series Order). Each episode of the Program shall consist of
one (1) twenty-two minute (22:00) animated story or two (2) eleven-minute (11:00) animated
stories (Story Segments) and an additional animated and/or live-action interstitial segment
(Interstitials) packaged to PBSs prescribed length for thirty-minute (30:00) programs (i.e., 40 x
28:46). Following delivery and acceptance of the Initial Series Order, Schultz shall be attached to
the Program as an executive producer for the Life of the Series, subject to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, Life of the Series shall mean the time period
during which new episodes of the Program are actively being produced. The Life of the Series shall
end when (a) new episodes of the Program are no longer being produced, (b) upon Lenders or
Schultzs default of their obligations under this Agreement (as defined in Section 8 below), or (c)
upon Schultzs death, whichever occurs sooner.
Services Agreement between Al Roker Entertainment, Inc. Page 1 of 11

and Home Plate Entertainment Company
3. Compensation/Contingent Compensation/ Holdbacks/Audit/Travel Expenses
a. Compensation. Subject to Company's rights as set forth herein, and provided

that neither Lender nor Schultz is in material uncured breach of this Agreement, Company agrees to
pay Lender, and Lender agrees to accept a flat fee in the amount of Five Hundred Forty-Four
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($544,500) (the Flat Fee) as consideration for performing the
Services hereunder. Company shall pay the Flat Fee to Lender as follows: (1) one lump sum
payment in the amount of One Hundred Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($108,900) (Lump
Sum Payment) within fifteen (15) calendar days following the date on which Company receives
its initial budget payment from PBS and (2) thirty-two (32) weekly installments of Thirteen
Thousand Six Hundred Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($13,612.50) (each a Weekly Installment
Payment, collectively the Weekly Instalment Payments) to commence eight (8) weeks
following payment of the Lump Sum Payment. The Weekly Installment Payments shall also be
paid out of the Series budget. Lenders Flat Fee shall increase on a cumulative basis at a rate of
three percent (3%) for each Series order after the Initial Series Order.
b. Contingent Compensation. Lender shall receive twenty-five percent (25%) of

one hundred percent (100%) of Companys Net Revenue (as defined below) (the
Participation Fee) which shall be reducible by up to fifty percent (50%) for additional
third-party participants.
c. Net Revenue means all gross revenue actually received by or credited to

Companys account from the exploitation of the Series from all sources worldwide,
including audiovisual, licensing, and merchandising, for as long as Company actually
receives such revenue, less the following deductions:
i) Any other profit participation/contingent compensation contractually owed

to third-party participants;
ii) A Distribution Fee defined as the actual customary, and reasonable fees
charged to Company by third-party distributors, sub-distributors, or sales agents up
to a cap of an amount equal to, in the aggregate, thirty-five percent (35%) of total
Gross Revenues or (b) those reasonable and customary fees charged by Company, in
the event Company acts as distributor or sales agent, up to a cap of an amount equal
to, in the aggregate, thirty percent (30%) of total Gross Revenue. In the case where
Company uses third-party distributors, sub distributors, or sales agents, Company
shall be permitted to charge an Override of up to five percent (5%) in addition to
the actual and verifiable third-party fee. Any such Override shall first be deducted
from Gross Revenue (i.e., off-the-top, not from the share that is otherwise due
Lender).
iii) Distribution Expenses defined as the actual, customary, reasonable,

direct, verifiable, out-of-pocket costs (including, but not limited to reasonable fees
for language dubs, trademarks and legal representation) incurred and paid by
Company directly to a third party in connection with Companys distribution and
exploitation of the Program up to a cap of equal to, in the aggregate, five percent
(5%) of total Company Gross Revenues. The five percent (5%) cap on Distribution
Expenses shall not apply to style guide preparation and intellectual property
registration, prosecution and enforcement for the Series or related intellectual

property as well as the actual out-of-pocket cost to Producer of foreign language
dubbing not otherwise paid for by international licensees;
iv) Production Deficit means the actual, direct, verifiable, costs incurred
by Company in producing and delivering the Series to PBS or another financier
(including without limitation reasonable budgeted Production Fees (capped at five
percent (5%) of the approved Series budget for each season of the Series), reasonable
costs categorized as production overhead (capped at ten percent (10%) of the
approved Series budget), and unreimbursed advances and overages); as set forth in
the production budget that has not otherwise been recouped from pre-sales,
advances, underwriting or any other source, and that has been properly documented
v) Tax credit shortfalls, if any (the difference between the amount estimated
per the Tax Credit Comfort Letter and the amount actually received by Company);
and
vi) Any production shortfalls or overages.
d. Reserves. Company shall have the right to withhold a reasonable portion of

Lenders Participation Fee as a reserve against exchanges or returns of physical goods only
(Reserves). Any reserves will be paid to Lender or deducted from Lenders Participation
Fee in the calendar quarter following the quarter in which such excess or shortfall reserve
was identified. Adjustments for reserves will be reflected on the Participation Fee Statement
for the calendar quarter following the quarter in which such discrepancies were identified.
e. Participation Fee Statements. The term Participation Fee Statement

means a detailed written statement of Lenders Participation Fees reflecting all calculations
(including sales, affiliate sales, and any applicable Reserves), and a copy of the final
accounting report received from the revenue sources above. Company will furnish to Lender
a Participation Fee Statement (as defined above) and remit payment of all Participation Fees
then due to Lender within thirty-five (35) days following the end of each quarter during the
Term. Company will provide the first Participation Fee Statement to Lender within ten (10)
business days following Companys recoupment of Companys Production Deficit (e.g.,
development and production fees) or two (2) years following delivery to PBS of the last
episode in the Initial Series Order, whichever occurs first. Company will continue to
provide quarterly Participation Fee Statements to Lender until four (4) consecutive quarters
of zero participation occur, at which time Company will begin providing Participation Fee
Statements on a semi-annual basis. Company will begin providing Participation Fees
Statements to Lender on an annual basis. If eight (8) consecutive quarters of zero
participation occur after Company begins providing semi-annual Participation Fee
Statements. Each Participation Fee Statement will become binding upon Lender and neither
Lender nor Schultz shall have nor make any claim against Company with respect to the
payment of any Participation Fees pursuant to any applicable Participation Fee Statement
unless Lender advises Company in writing of the specific basis of any such disputed
Participation Fee Statement within nine (9) months after the date of each applicable
Participation Fee Statement.

f. Audit. Commencing with the date of this Agreement and continuing for a
period of two (2) years following Lenders receipt of any Participation Fee Statement
hereunder, Lender shall have the right, at its expense, to undertake, or have undertaken by an
independent public accounting firm, an examination and audit of all records that, in Lenders
reasonable judgment, are necessary to determine distribution income received, distribution
expenses, and Series expenses incurred by Lender under this Agreement and the accuracy of
Participation Fee Statements and payments made to Lender pursuant to this Agreement.
Such examination shall occur at a time and place agreeable to both Company and Lender. If
such examination reveals a discrepancy between the examined books and records and
Participation Fee Statement and payments made to Lender, Company shall correct such
discrepancy and immediately pay to Lender any amounts owed to Lender as a result of such
discrepancy. If any such amount owed is equal to five percent (5%) or more of the amount
paid to Lender by Company, then Company shall pay to Lender the actual reasonable cost
incurred by Lender in conducting the audit.
g. Travel Expenses. When performance of the Services requires Schultz to

travel more than seventy-five (75) miles from his principal residence which is currently
located at 302 Bell Canyon Rd., Bell Canyon, CA 91307, Company will reimburse Lender
for Schultzs reasonable travel, accommodations, and a per diem as pre-approved in writing
by Company and with proper receipt documentation.
4. Credits. For each episode of the Series on which Schultz performs all Services as
required by Company, Shultz shall receive an "Executive Producer" credit and a Creative
Development credit, on a single card in a font type and size similar to that of other executive
producers, if any, on the Series. If Schultz performs services on the Series for less than the full
Series Term, Company and Lender shall determine a mutually agreeable credit for each episode on
which Schultz does not render services. In the case of any failure by Company to comply with the
terms and conditions of this Section 4, if Lender shall thereafter notify Company in writing within
30 days following such failure, Company shall use good faith efforts to restore the credit on a
prospective basis within ten (10) business days following Company's receipt of Lenders written
notification. Company agrees to notify all third-party distributors (if any) of the credit provisions of
this Section and shall use good faith reasonable efforts to bind said third-party distributors to the
credit provisions of this Section, provided, however, that no casual or inadvertent failure by
Company, nor any failure by any third party, to comply with the foregoing credit provisions, nor
Companys failure to bind any distributors, will constitute a breach hereof.
5. Ownership and Authorization
a. Company shall own all results, materials, and proceeds of Lenders and
Schultzs Services hereunder (the Materials), as work specially commissioned as works-
made-for-hire as part of a television show or other audiovisual work, within the meaning of
the U.S. Copyright laws. Lender and Schultz acknowledge that Company shall be the sole
and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest to the copyright and other intellectual
property rights in and to the Property, Materials, and the Series, including, without
limitation, each element and episode thereof, and any and all underlying rights on which the
Series is based, including without limitation, the idea, concept, and format thereof and the
Materials, for use in perpetuity, throughout the universe, in any and all media now known or
hereinafter devised. If, for any reason, the Property, Materials, and/or the Series or any
portion thereof is deemed not to be work-made-for-hire, Lender and Schultz each hereby
irrevocably and unconditionally assign all right, title, and interest in and to the Property,
Materials, and/or the Series or any part thereof to Company. Lender and Schultz further
assign and waive any droit moral or moral rights (including, but not limited to, any
rights of attribution or integrity) that they may have with respect to the Property, Materials,
and Series.
b. Without limitation, Lender and Schultz agree that Company may exploit and
permit others to exploit their respective names, Schultzs voice, their respective approved
likenesses, and approved biographical facts in connection with the Series, in Companys
sole discretion, in any and all media, now known or hereinafter devised, throughout the
world, in perpetuity, without payment of any further compensation or consideration of any
kind to Lender or Schultz.
6. Warranties
a. Lender represents and warrants to Company that:
i) Lender has the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement
and that Lender and Schultz are ready, willing, and able to perform their respective
obligations hereunder;
ii) The material conceived by Lender or Schultz for or in connection

with the Services hereunder will be either Lender or Schultz's own creation or fully
cleared by Lender or Schultz for such use or in the public domain, and that such
material will not violate or infringe upon any rights of any nature whatsoever of any
person, firm, or corporation;
iii) Neither Lender nor Schultz has accepted or agreed to accept, and will
not accept or agree to accept, other valuable consideration for the inclusion of any
matter as a part of the Series hereunder, and Lender and Schultz will not mention or
identify on the Series hereunder any product, service, trademark, or brand name
without Company's prior written consent; and
iv) Lender and Schultz have entered into a valid and enforceable
agreement (the Lender Agreement) that grants Lender the right to lend Schultzs
services to Company and requires Schultz to comply with Lenders obligations
hereunder in furnishing Schultzs services to Company. Lender and Schultz shall
take all necessary and desirable steps to keep the Lender Agreement in full force and
effect during the Term hereof. Simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement,
Lender shall deliver to Company a fully executed Inducement & Guarantee
statement (the Inducement Letter) attached hereto as Exhibit A; Lender hereby
gives its consent and approval to the contents thereof and said Inducement Letter is
hereby made a part of this Agreement. If Company elects to receive Schultzs
services directly under the terms of the Inducement Letter pursuant to a claim by
Schultz that Lender is no longer entitled to Schultzs services, then Companys
obligations to Lender under this Agreement shall be automatically suspended until it
is determined, through final, non-appealable judgment, arbitration, or written
settlement agreement (Final Resolution), whether or not Lender is entitled to

Schultzs services. Company shall place any proceeds due to Lender for Schultzs
services during any period of suspension into an escrow account until it receives a
Final Resolution. Then, Company shall pay the proceeds to the appropriate party
according to the Final Resolution. If Lender is determined to have been entitled to
Schultzs services as required herein, then such suspension shall thereupon be
terminated. If Lender is determined not to have been entitled to Schultzs services as
required hereunder, then the Term of this Agreement solely with respect to Lender
shall be deemed to have terminated as of the date the suspension commenced.
b. Company represents and warrants to Lender that (i) Company has the full
right and authority to enter into this Agreement; and (ii) the material conceived by Company
or its employees for any work hereunder will be either Companys or its employees own
creation or fully cleared for such use or is in the public domain, and that, to Companys
knowledge, such material will not violate or infringe upon any rights of any nature
whatsoever of any person, firm, or corporation.
7. Indemnification. Lender hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Company

harmless from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, cost and expense, including
reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by Company as a result of, arising out of, or in connection with
any of its representations and warranties or any violation of any term or condition of this Agreement
required to be performed or observed by Lender or Schultz, including, but not limited to, the
Services.
Company shall indemnify, defend and hold Lender harmless from and against any
and all loss, damage, liability, cost and expense, including reasonable outside attorney's fees,
incurred by Lender as a direct result of, arising out of, or in connection with a violation of any term
or condition of this Agreement required to be performed or observed by Company.
This provision shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
8. Suspension and Termination for Default. Company shall notify Lender in writing of
any material breach of this Agreement by Lender or Schultz. If such breach remains uncured for
fifteen (15) days following Lenders receipt of such written notice during active production of the
Series or for thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice when the Series is not in active
production, then Lender shall be deemed to be in default of this Agreement and it shall, at that time,
be deemed automatically suspended. Company shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in
the event of default by notifying Lender in writing of its intention to terminate following the
expiration of the applicable cure period. If this Agreement is suspended pursuant to this Section,
Company's obligations to make any payments to Lender for the Services under Section 3(a) shall
similarly be suspended. If Company terminates this Agreement because of Lenders default,
Lenders obligations to pay the Flat Fee (or any portion thereof) and the Participation Fee shall also
terminate. The automatic suspension of this Agreement pursuant to this Section shall not affect
Company's right thereafter to reinstate or terminate this Agreement. The foregoing shall in no way
limit any other remedy which Company may have against Lender and/or Schultz. Upon expiration
or termination of this Agreement, Lender shall return any and all Company equipment or supplies to
Company and deliver all Materials, including all works in progress and status reports related
thereto, to Company, and Company shall have no further obligations whatsoever to Lender except
as expressly set forth in this Agreement.
9. Suspension and Termination for Force Majeure, Disability or Death. If the

development, preparation or production of the Series is hampered, interrupted, or prevented due to
an event of force majeure (as that term is customarily defined in the television industry, which
definition includes, but is not limited to, a pandemic, act of God, severe weather event, civil unrest,
natural disasters, and work stoppages) (hereafter, Force Majeure Event), or in the event that
Lender or Schultz is unable to fully render any of their respective services hereunder due to
Lenders economic downturn, collapse, bankruptcy, tax issues, or regulatory violations, or Schultzs
sickness, mental and/or physical disability, or legal disability (hereafter Disability Event) or
Schultzs death, this Agreement shall be deemed automatically suspended immediately upon the
onset of such Force Majeure Event, Disability Event, or death and continue through the duration of
such Force Majeure Event, Disability Event, or death (as the case may be), and Company shall have
the right to terminate this Agreement by notifying Lender to this effect in writing upon learning of
Schultzs death or at any time while the Force Majeure Event, or Disability Event giving rise to the
suspension continues. If this Agreement is suspended pursuant to this Section 9, Company's
obligations to make any payments under this Agreement shall similarly be suspended. If such
suspension is the result of a Force Majeure Event or a Disability Event, Company shall continue to
pay Lender the Participation Fee in accordance with Section 3b. If this Agreement is suspended as a
result of Schultzs death, Company shall pay to Lender the fees due and owing under Section 3a and
shall pay the Participation Fee earned during the calendar quarter in which Schultz died but shall
cease paying the Flat Fee and the Participation Fee thereafter. If a suspension resulting from a Force
Majeure Event lasts longer than eight (8) consecutive weeks, (upon 90 days written notice to
Company) Lender shall have the right to terminate this Agreement; provided, however, that
Company shall have the right to reinstate this Agreement, upon written notice to Lender, within
seven (7) business days following Company's receipt of Lender's notice of proposed termination. If
this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section 9, Company and Lender shall be relieved of
all executory obligations hereunder and the compensation accrued to Schultz hereunder, if any,
when paid, shall be deemed payment in full of the compensation payable to Lender hereunder. The
automatic suspension of this Agreement pursuant to this Section shall not affect Company's right
thereafter to reinstate or terminate this Agreement.
10. Special Circumstances
a. Neither Lender nor Schultz shall commit any act or do anything which might
tend to bring Company or Network into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule, or
which might tend to reflect unfavorably on Network or Company, any stations broadcasting
or scheduled to broadcast the Series, or any sponsor of the Series. Lender agrees that these
same morals standards shall apply to all persons hired, retained or utilized by Lender or
Schultz to work on, or in connection with, the Series (collectively Lender Personnel),
including but not limited to Schultz and, if applicable, the talent to be featured in the Series.
If Lender or any Lender Personnel violates this clause, Company shall have the right to
immediately terminate this Agreement upon giving written notice to Lender without
prejudice to any other remedy of any kind or nature in law or set forth in this Agreement.
Lender shall promptly return to Company any amounts paid by Company to Lender
hereunder and the parties shall have no further obligations to each other under this
Agreement other than any obligations that survive termination of the Agreement, if any.

b. Schultz agrees to submit to a background check if the Services require

Schultz to work with children under 18 years of age or if requested by Network.
11. Remedies. If Company is in breach of any material provision of this Agreement,

Lender specifically acknowledges and agrees that the damage, if any, caused thereby will not be
irreparable or otherwise sufficient to entitle Lender to injunctive or other equitable relief. Therefore,
Lenders rights and remedies in any such event shall be strictly limited to the right, if any, to
recover monetary damages in an action at law. Lender shall not be entitled by reason of any such
breach to rescind this Agreement, to restrain Company's exercise of any of the rights granted to
Company hereunder, or to restrain, enjoin, or otherwise impair the development, production, and/or
exploitation of the Materials or the Series, or any rights therein, throughout the universe, in any
media whatsoever, whether now known or hereafter devised, or any advertising, publicity, or
promotion in connection therewith. Lender acknowledges, however, that the Services and works to
be provided to Company by Lender and Schultz hereunder are of a unique nature and that Company
cannot be adequately compensated at law for any material breach of this Agreement by Lender or
Schultz and that such breach shall entitle Company to seek injunctive and equitable relief, among
other remedies.
12. Independent Contractor. This Agreement shall not render Lender or Schultz an
employee, partner, agent of, or joint venturer with Company for any purpose. Lender is and will
remain an independent contractor in its relationship to Company. Neither Lender nor Schultz shall
have any claim against Company hereunder or otherwise for vacation pay, sick leave, retirement
benefits, social security, workers compensation, health or disability benefits, unemployment
insurance benefits, or employee benefits of any kind. Lender shall be solely responsible for payment
of all of taxes owed on compensation received by Lender or Schultz under or relating to this
Agreement. Neither Lender nor Schultz shall have or represent themselves as having the authority
to bind, commit, or execute agreements on behalf of Company in any way, or to incur any liability
in the name of or on behalf of Company.
13. Insurance. Lender warrants that Lender has obtained proper insurance to cover its
work under this Agreement, including Worker's Compensation, and will provide proof of all such
insurance upon request by Company. Schultz shall be included as a named insured on Company's
Errors and Omissions (E&O) and General Liability (GL) insurance policies. Company shall be
included as a named insured on Lenders and/or Schultzs E&O and GL policies. This Section 13
shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
14. Notices. All notices required to be given hereunder shall be given in writing (unless
otherwise provided in this Agreement), either by personal delivery or overnight express service, to
the parties at their respective addresses as set out at the beginning of this Agreement. Either party
may specify a different address for such purpose by giving notice in writing. Likewise, the parties
may agree that communication by electronic mail will suffice as written notice hereunder.
15. Construction and Disputes.
a. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the

laws of the State of New York applicable to agreements made and wholly performed therein,
without regard to its choice of law rules. Each party agrees that venue is proper in New York
City, New York, and agrees to be subject to the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in
New York City, New York. If any provision of this Agreement shall be adjudged void or
unenforceable, the provision shall be revised to comply with the minimum requirements of
the law and shall in no way affect any other provision of this Agreement.
b. In the event a dispute arises under or in connection with this Agreement, such
dispute shall be submitted to arbitration administered by the International Centre for Dispute
Resolution in accordance with ICDR International Arbitration Rules for IFTA Arbitrations
(the Rules) effective as of the commencement of the arbitration and resolved by a single
arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties or, in the absence of
such agreement, selected in accordance with such Rules. Such arbitration shall be
confidential and shall take place via video conference or, if an in-person hearing is required,
at the offices of the American Arbitration Association located in New York City, New York.
Neither the parties, their agents nor the arbitrator shall disclose the final decision of any
proceeding hereunder, except as may in good faith be required in any judicial proceeding
brought to enforce this paragraph or any award rendered in a proceeding hereunder. The
record of any proceeding shall remain confidential and may not be published by the ICDR,
AAA, or the parties. The award or decision rendered by the arbitrator shall be final, binding,
and conclusive and shall not be appealable and any court of competent jurisdiction may
enter judgment upon such award. The prevailing party in any such arbitration shall be
entitled, as part of its award, to its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the arbitration
proceeding. Otherwise, each party shall bear its own costs and expenses.
16. Waiver. No waiver by either party of the breach of any provision of this Agreement
shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or
different provision. All remedies, rights, undertakings, obligations, and agreements contained in
this Agreement shall be cumulative and none of them shall be in limitation of any other remedy,
right, undertaking, obligation or agreement of either party.
17. Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure. Certain confidential and personal information may

be obtained by Lender and Schultz during the course of its work, whether concerning programming,
creative ideas, business plans, matters relating to the principals of Company or other employees of
Company. Neither Lender nor Schultz shall in any way use, sell, lease, license or otherwise
disseminate any such information in any form now known or hereafter developed or allow others to
do so, directly or indirectly.
18. Publicity. Lender warrants and agrees that neither Lender nor Schultz shall authorize
the publication of any news story, magazine article, book, blog, or other publicity or information of
any kind or nature relating to the Series or to Lenders or Schultzs Services hereunder, or to
Company or Network without the prior written consent of Company in each instance.
19. Assignment. This Agreement may be freely assigned by Company in whole or in

part to Network, any third-party financier of the Series, or to any entity that purchases all or
substantially all of Companys assets. Lender may not assign this Agreement.
20. Survival. The following Sections shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement: 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, 3g, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10a, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.

21. Agreement and Modification. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of
the parties in relation to the subject matter herein and cannot be waived or altered in whole or in
part except if done in a writing signed by both parties hereto. Any prior agreements or
understandings shall be deemed null and void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
Please sign below to indicate acceptance of these terms.
WEATHERHUNTERS, INC. HOME PLATE ENTERTAINMENT CO.
___________________________________ __________________________________
By: Tracie Brennan, Executive Vice President By: William Bill Schultz, CEO

EXHIBIT A
INDUCEMENT & GUARANTEE
As a material inducement to WeatherHunters, Inc. (Company) to enter into the Services

Agreement between Company, on the one part, and Home Plate Entertainment Company
(Lender) f/s/o Bill Schultz (Schultz), on the other part, dated as of January ____, 2023 (the
Agreement), and for Companys express benefit, the undersigned hereby guarantees to Company
all of the obligations applicable to Lender under the Agreement. The foregoing guarantee is direct
and is not conditioned upon Company exercising any remedy against Lender and may be enforced
directly by Company against the undersigned. Further, the undersigned hereby expressly represents,
warrants and agrees for Companys express benefit and as a further inducement for Company to
enter into the Agreement that: (a) Schultz will guarantee the performance of Lender of any and all
obligations required to be performed by Lender in the Agreement; (b) Schultz is bound by and will
perform the obligations and comply with all other provisions set forth specifically for Schultz as a
principal or by name in the Agreement; (c) Schultz will render services to Lender in accordance
with and to the extent provided in the Agreement; (d) Schultz is and will remain under contract to
Lender for the express purposes set forth in the Agreement; (e) Schultz is not now and will not
hereafter be a party to a contract or contractual arrangement with any third person, firm, or
corporation which will in any way prevent Schultz from fulfilling Schultzs obligations under the
Agreement except as otherwise expressly permitted pursuant to the Agreement; (f) unless
substituted, Schultz will look only to Lender, and not to Company, for any compensation or other
payments; (g) Schultz will indemnify Company in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement
with respect to any breach by Schultz of the obligations set forth specifically for Schultz as a
principal, or by name in the Agreement or herein; (h) any restrictions on Schultzs activities,
requirements for grants or similar provisions of the Agreement will be binding upon Schultz and
any firm or corporation in which Schultz has a direct or indirect interest of any nature or sort or
which Schultz directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by or is under common control with
Schultz; (i) to the best of Schultzs knowledge, the agreements, representations, warranties, and
grants of rights set forth specifically for Schultz as executive producer, a principal or by name in the
Agreement are true and correct in all material respects; (j) Company may enforce the
aforementioned indemnity directly against Schultz without necessarily first proceeding against any
other party and without the consent of Lender; and (k) unless otherwise provided therein, no
alteration, modification, or amendment of the Agreement will affect Companys rights or
obligations under this Guarantee and Inducement.
_______________________
William Bill Schultz

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

WEATHERHUNTERS, INC. AND HOME PLATE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 1”) is made and entered
into as of this 13th day of February 2023 (the “Amendment No. 1 Effective Date”), by and between WeatherHunters,
Inc., a New York corporation, with an address of 1357 Broadway, Suite 529, New York, NY 10018 (“Company”),
and Home Plate Entertainment Company, a California corporation located at 302 Bell Canyon Rd., Bell Canyon, CA
91307 (“Lender”), for the services of William “Bill” Schultz (“Schultz”). Company and Lender are each referred
to as a “party” and collectively as the “parties.”
WHEREAS, Company and Lender entered into that certain Services Agreement with an effective date of
January 9, 2023 (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, Company and Lender desire to amend the terms of the Agreement in certain respects.
NOW THEREFORE, Company and Lender hereby agree as follows:
1. The preamble sentence is hereby amended by adding the name “William” before the name “Bill” to
ensure that the Agreement contains Schultz’s formal name and adding quotation marks around the name “Bill” to
indicate that it is the name by which Schultz is most commonly referred. The preamble sentence shall now read as
follows:
THIS SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of January 9,
2023 (the “Effective Date”), by and between WeatherHunters, Inc. ("Company"), whose
business office is located at 1357 Broadway, Suite 529, New York, NY 10018, and Home
Plate Entertainment Company (“Lender”) for the services of William “Bill” Schultz
(“Schultz,”), having its address at 302 Bell Canyon Road, Bell Canyon, CA 91307.
2. Section 3.a. of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the word “weekly” in every place that
it appears and replacing it with the word “monthly.” Accordingly, Section 3.a. shall now read as follows:
3. Compensation/Contingent Compensation/ Holdbacks/Audit/Travel Expenses
a. Compensation. Subject to Company's rights as set forth herein, and

provided that neither Lender nor Schultz is in material uncured breach of this
Agreement, Company agrees to pay Lender, and Lender agrees to accept a flat fee in
the amount of Five Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($544,500)
(the “Flat Fee”) as consideration for performing the Services hereunder. Company
shall pay the Flat Fee to Lender as follows: (1) one lump sum payment in the amount
of One Hundred Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($108,900) (“Lump Sum
Payment”) within fifteen (15) calendar days following the date on which Company
receives its initial budget payment from PBS and (2) thirty-two (32) monthly
installments of Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents
($13,612.50) (each a “Monthly Installment Payment,” collectively the “Monthly
Instalment Payments”) to commence eight (8) weeks following payment of the
Lump Sum Payment. The Monthly Installment Payments shall also be paid out of the
Series budget. Lender’s Flat Fee shall increase on a cumulative basis at a rate of three
percent (3%) for each Series order after the Initial Series Order.
3. The first sentence of Exhibit A, Inducement & Guarantee is hereby amended by deleting the number
“8” in the date and replacing it with the number “9” and by adding the words “and any amendment thereto” after the
defined term (the “Agreement”) and before the words “and for Company’s express benefit.” The first sentence of
Exhibit A, Inducement & Guarantee shall now read as follows:
Amendment No. 1 to Services Agreement between 1

WeatherHunters, Inc. and Home Plate Entertainment Co.
As a material inducement to WeatherHunters, Inc. (“Company”) to enter into the

Services Agreement between Company, on the one part, and Home Plate Entertainment
Company (“Lender”) f/s/o Bill Schultz (“Schultz”), on the other part, dated as of January
9, 2023 (the “Agreement”), and any amendment thereto, and for Company’s express
benefit, the undersigned hereby guarantees to Company all of the obligations applicable
to Lender under the Agreement.
4. All capitalized terms contained in this Amendment No. 1 and not defined herein shall have the same
meaning as ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
5. Except as expressly stated in this Amendment No. 1, all language in the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and is hereby ratified in all respects and shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Lender have executed this Amendment No. 1 effective as of the
Amendment No. 1 Effective Date.
HOME PLATE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY WEATHERHUNTERS, INC.
_____________________________ ______________________________
William “Bill” Schultz, CEO Tracie Brennan, Executive Vice President
Amendment No. 1 to Services Agreement between 2

WeatherHunters, Inc. and Home Plate Entertainment Co.
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
John D. Maatta
818-515-3623
john@frostllp.com\
March 7, 2024
Ms. Lisa Tucker

Senior Vice President
Development & Production
Al Roker Entertainment
1357 Broadway, Suite 529
New York, New York 10018
via email and by overnight courier
Re: Response to February 22, 2024, Notice to Cure from Al Roker Entertainment
concerning William “Bill” Schultz and that animated series known as “Weather Hunters”
(the “Series”).
Dear Ms. Tucker:
This is in response to the notice dated February 22, 2024 (the “Notice”) addressed to
William “Bill” Schultz (“Mr. Schultz”). The Notice is ostensibly a demand from WeatherHunters,
Inc.(“WHI”) to cure a number of alleged fabricated failings on the part of Mr. Schultz. However,
the Notice is written on Al Roker Entertainment stationery and signed by you in your capacity as
Senior Vice President at Al Roker Entertainment. All of this is consistent with what is obvious:
Al Roker Entertainment is the alter ego of WHI, and that Al Roker Entertainment is fully legally
responsible for the wrongful and illegal conduct that is now being directed toward Mr. Schultz.
The Notice that was tendered to Mr. Schultz is a wrongful and cynical document that was
written as a bad faith pretext to attempt to terminate the valid and subsisting agreement that Mr.
Schultz has with WHI. As the alter ego of WHI Al Roker Entertainment is interfering with Mr.
Schultz’s contract with WHI and is thereby interfering with his prospective economic advantage.
These are actionable torts.
One need not look beyond the first paragraph of the Notice to grasp the nature of the bad
faith and illegal conduct that the Notice is designed to effectuate. The Notice states:
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
In your role as executive producer, you are responsible for

managing all creative and business elements of the Series,
including without limitation, “drafting the budget and
production schedule, interfacing with the Network sourcing
and hiring producers, writers, crew members, voice talent,
animators, animation studios, composers and other necessary
personnel and vendors and all other services necessary to
produce and deliver a first-class animated series.”
The above statement in the Notice purports to establish the rationale and the basis for the actions
now being taken by Al Roker Entertainment and WHI against Mr. Schultz. However, the bad
faith underlying the current course of conduct is belied by the fact that a very important element
contained in the Agreement is omitted. The Services Agreement dated January 29, 2023 (the
“Agreement”) actually states:
Lender shall make Schultz available to consult with and help

Company manage all creative and business elements of the
Series, including but not limited to drafting the budget and the
production schedule, interfacing with the Network, sourcing
and hiring producers, writers, crew members, voice talent,
animators and animation studios, composers and any other
necessary personnel and vendors and all other services
necessary to produce and deliver a first-class animated series
(collectively referred to herein as the “Services”)(emphasis
added).
Clearly, there was a reason for the omission and thereby the mischaracterization of the role
and responsibilities of Mr. Schultz. The Notice states: “You are responsible for managing”
while the Agreement actually states only that Mr. Schultz shall be made available to consult
with and help Company manage. The omission of the critical language that goes to the
responsibilities and obligations of Mr. Schultz was clearly intentional and designed to create
a false narrative and a false pretext concerning the responsibilities attributable to Mr. Schultz,
who is a non-exclusive contractor. This is bad faith and represents a betrayal of Mr. Schultz,
by Al Roker Entertainment and WHI. Mr. Schultz performed dedicated and highly skilled
services for many years on the Series and the current conduct by Al Roker Entertainment and
WHI will not stand.
What is now taking place in this situation is nothing short of a reprehensible and crude
character assassination of Mr. Schultz for the sole purpose of manufacturing a pretext to
terminate the Agreement. There is no legitimate basis on which a termination of Mr. Schultz
can be legally sustained and Al Roker Entertainment and its alter ego WHI will be held legally
responsible for the substantial damage that has been done, and which will be done. The
continuing course of conduct in this situation, designed to lead to a termination of Mr. Schultz,
will constitute a breach of the Agreement, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and the defamation of Mr. Schultz. All of this conduct will cause Mr. Schultz and
his family to sustain great and significant emotional upset and distress. Mr. Schultz has done
2
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
nothing to warrant any of this treatment by Al Roker Entertainment and WHI, and this
situation will be rectified.
The Notice enumerates eight (8) separate purported fabricated failings by Mr. Schultz
that allegedly form the basis for a manufactured allegation of breach. The over-arching
problem with each of the eight (8) issues that were identified in the Notice is that each of the
purported breaches is described in a manner that is so unsophisticated and so unprofessionally
set forth that it is difficult to know or understand exactly what the alleged failings by Mr.
Schultz are. It must be kept in mind that Mr. Schultz was contracted only in the capacity of a
non-full time executive producer performing specific services as described in the Agreement.
as “consulting and helping” the Company. Each of the eight (8) pretextual allegations set
forth in the Notice are hereby addressed:
1. Failure to properly budget the Series to include underbudgeting curriculum advisors,

production and staff.
The instant project concerns a 40-half hour $20 million independent production. Of course,
with this kind of project there will be line-item variances given the constraints and limitations
placed on the available finances. The production budget (the “Budget”) that was modeled for the
Series is a very strong and appropriate production budget. In addition, the Budget was specifically
approved by Al Roker Entertainment and Tracie Brennan, the then head of production. Multiple
detailed iterations of the Budget were presented to Al Roker Entertainment, and they were
discussed line item by line item several times over the course of many meetings taking place since
2015. Further, the Budget, the production schedule and the entire finance plan were not only
approved by Al Roker Entertainment, but such were also specifically approved by pbskids together
with their attorneys, production executives and finance experts. The Budget is incorporated in the
pbskids license agreement with Al Roker Entertainment and is foundational to the production plan
upon which the project was “greenlit”. Notwithstanding the magnitude and complexity of the
Budget and the approval of the Budget by numerous individuals and by Al Roker Entertainment,
WHI and pbskids, the material breach that is alleged concerns the inclusion of “Curriculum
advisors, production and staff”. It is impossible to know what “production and staff” means or,
how the budgeting of curriculum advisors was in any way material to this multi-million-dollar
Budget. The lack of sophistication behind the claim that there is a breach concerning the Budget
would be laughable, were it not so damaging to Mr. Schultz. The alleged failing by Mr. Schultz
concerning budgeting does not even come close to being a breach, much less a material breach,
and the claim is a bad faith pretext designed to manufacture an issue to use as justification for a
wrongful termination.
2. Failure to properly staff the show with enough employees to produce the series, to include
not budgeting for a script coordinator, line producer or full-time production accountant. 1
1
The Budget is spread across 3 companies: Al Roker Entertainment, SPLASH, and IOM. Splash has a line producer
budget, and IOM has a line producer. Also, the same is true regarding the Budget for the Production Accountant -
Splash has money budgeted and IOM has a full time Production Accountant for itself. However, Al Roker
Entertainment should have hired an estimator, as Mr. Schultz requested, and Management refused to do so.
3
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
Mr. Schultz has produced and staffed over 30 animated series. The Program is currently
substantially on budget. 2 The staffing allocation choices, as approved by Al Roker Entertainment
, WHI and pbskids, are more than sufficient. Clearly, in creating the Notice neither Al Roker
Entertainment nor WHI understand the division of labor between the Canadian studio, ($13 million
of the $20-million- budget), and Splash Entertainment, $3.2 million of the $20 million budget).
Splash is responsible for some production staffing. The Notice ignores the fact that there were
contractual and financial caps on the total Budget. The Budget that was prepared and approved by
Al Roker Entertainment and pbskids represents the best on screen result for the production of the
Series. The allegations that are made against Mr. Schultz are both sophomoric and unprofessional,
stating that a $20 million dollar budget fails to “staff the show with “enough” employees and “not
budgeting” for three positions: (i) a script coordinator,(ii) line producer, or (iii) a full-time
production accountant” demonstrate a profound ignorance of the sophistication and complexity
involved in the creation of a budget for a Series such as the instant one. The “failure to staff”
allegation is an unserious claim in the context of the magnitude of the Budget for this Series. The
alleged failing by Mr. Schultz concerning proper staffing does not even come close to being a
breach, much less a material breach, and the claim is a bad faith pretext designed to manufacture
an issue to use as justification for a wrongful termination.
3. Failure to hire the right people in the right positions on the series.
This allegation is both unfounded and unintelligible. However, as uninformed as the

allegation is, it is important to address this claim in that it in all likelihood goes to the root of the
reason that Al Roker Enterta inment and WHI are now going to such inappropriate lengths
to wrongfully terminate Mr. Schultz. The fact of the matter is that Management 3 has continually
criticized Jerry Brice, the supervising producer on the Series, who also wrote the PBS-approved
DEI policy. Management has consistently complained about what Mr. Brice “brings to the
production”. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Brice is a well-known and experienced animation
industry veteran with many important attributes that have made the show what it is in the eyes of
the network, and which will lead to the ultimate success of the Series.
Mr. Schultz has been under great and continual criticism and pressure from Management
concerning both Mr. Brice and the Program’s DEI Policy. Management has been irrationally
critical toward both Mr. Brice and the DEI policy that was developed for the Series. The fact is
that the mandated and approved DEI Policy requires a consideration of the diversity of all of
candidates and hires, consistent with PBS’s written contractual requirement to adhere to the PBS
DEI policy, and the DEI Policy that was developed for the Series. In addition, Management has
consistently denigrated the DEI Policy and has interfered with the writers and curriculum and other
aspects of the US based staff, subcontractors and producers and artists that have been put in place.
There are over 100 first class artists and animation professionals working to make the show
possible. The fact is that Management has evidenced distain for both Mr. Brice and the DEI policy
2
The Series is currently showing a variance of about $210k. However, the Budget was approved, and the series was
“greenlit” with the Roker internal budget showing a $270k overage. Mr. Roker’s EP fee was set at $500k, so the
variance that shows on the internal budget - still nets 300k of his fee. And they approved it. The Cost report we sent
PBS in November 2023 showed a variance of 156k – but the project is stable and substantially on budget. Most of the
costs are fixed and bid out as flat contracts - so only decisions by Al Roker Entertainment will add to the variance.
3
As used herein the term “Management” refers to Lisa Tucker and/or Caren Franklin
4
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
and have turned that distain into actionable harassment against Mr. Schulz, who supports both Mr.
Brice and The objectives of the DEI Policy. It was Mr. Schultz, in standing up for both Mr. Brice
and the DEI policy, that made him a target of Management leading to the current bad faith attempt
to terminate Mr. Schultz. The alleged failing by Mr. Schultz concerning “hiring the right person
in the right positions on the series” is apparently Management’s code for Mr. Schultz standing up
for Mr. Brice and supporting the DEI Policy. In this regard, Management has scapegoated and is
attempting to punish Mr. Schultz because of actions he took as a whistleblower in making issues
concerning serious racial issues known to Management. The specific claim does not even come
close to being a breach, much less a material breach, and the claim is a bad faith pretext designed
to manufacture an issue to use as justification for a termination.
4. Failure to keep the production on schedule, falling 14 weeks behind in the scripting process
and now 6-8 weeks behind in animation, which has resulted in missed deadlines and has
delayed WHI’s ability to collect critical milestone payments.
Management of Al Roker Productions and WHI has: (i) continually and habitually refused
to review any production reports, production schedules, or detailed reports of any kind; rather
management has asked Mr. Schultz to distill very complex detailed issues down to one sentence.
It is not possible; (ii) failed to grasp the concept of how the animation process works. Management
has no experience in dealing with an animation production to be able to make claims of this nature.
The issue is that the Management of Al Roker Entertainment and WHI do not have sufficient
experience in series animation, Management certainly has no understanding nor ability concerning
the challenging process of the management of the cash flow, or the production schedule with the
milestone payments. The fact of the matter is that Al Roker Entertainment failed to properly secure
a sufficient line of credit for the start of production, and the delay impacted the entire production.
Al Roker Entertainment was informed they needed to have a sufficient line of credit before they
signed the PBS contract. The cashflow projections showed significant estimated negative
shortfalls that would need to be covered. PBS is only cash flowing $11.7 million of the $20.6
million Budget, on a reimbursement basis 4. The production finance plan was part of all of the
planning from the very beginning and is included in the PBS contract: thus the failure of Al Roker
Entertainment to provide proper financing exacerbated any timing problems with milestone
payments. Notwithstanding Mr. Schultz’ strong advisement that a sufficient line of credit be
obtained, Al Roker Entertainment failed and refused to do so, leading to shortfalls. The alleged
failing by Mr. Schultz concerning the schedule and the cash flow do not even come close to being
a breach, much less a material breach, and the claim is a bad faith pretext designed to manufacture
an issue to use as justification for a termination.
As you are most certainly aware, Mr. Schultz has performed very detailed and sophisticated
financial services on behalf of the Series, which were well beyond the scope of services
customarily performed by executive producers and well beyond any mandated duties set forth in
the Agreement. In fact, this week Mr. Schultz, concluded the negotiation of a new payment
4
Al Roker Entertainment obtained a $750k line of credit; however it was advised that was insufficient, But Al
Roker Entertainment mandated the line of credit to be guaranteed by WHI, which was not possible in that WHI
was a new single purpose entity. The Canadian studio offered to bank the contracts, but Al Roker Entertainment
would not even discuss the matter with Mr. Schultz
5
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
schedule with PBS. This new deal signed on Monday, after months of efforts by Mr. Schultz, will
result in $2 million in milestone payments that were not previously collectible by the Company.
The underlying issue is that Management has failed to properly obtain financing and to properly
financially prepare and support the project as an owner of the Series, not a service studio. The
successful efforts of Mr. Schultz in this regard were achieved notwithstanding the ill-informed
involvement by Management in a process that they were not capable of completing and did not
understand. Any issue with milestones was exacerbated, if not wholly created by the actions of
Management. However, due to the skill and exceptional effort of Mr. Schultz, payments may now
be invoiced by March 15th. Although the attribution for fault concerning milestone was wrongfully
placed on Mr. Schultz, any actual issue was cured by the skill and experience of Mr. Schultz, so
we will assume that alleged breach number four will be withdrawn.
5. Failure to properly apply for and submit the CPB Grant in a timely manner which delayed
the distribution of grant money to WHI by almost 3 months.
This is absurd. Grant submission is not a part of any executive producer services. The delay
in getting the submission approved is in no way a breach of Mr. Schultz’ agreement, the grant is
not even mentioned in the Agreement. The inclusion of this claim as a breach by Mr. Schultz
demonstrates the naked intention to blame Mr. Schultz for every challenge that has arisen on the
project whether or not it is actually a breach of his obligations and the services he contracted to
perform. The alleged failing by Mr. Schultz to submit a CPB Grant submission does not even come
to manufacture an issue to use as justification for a termination.
6. Failure to Establish a cohesive organizational structure with clear leadership roles, reporting
lines, and critical internal processes to ensure that the Series operations run efficiently and
effectively.
This is not true. The Series has a very effective animation pipeline that, as with any Series,
continues to be refined as production progresses. To the extent that there is any lack of cohesion
it was mostly borne of the actions of Management who have unsuccessfully mismanaged almost
every above the line item it became involved with, including the writers, the curriculum and staff
at Splash Entertainment. Management decided: (i) the extent of the authority that the head writer
would have over the production. (ii) the scope of authority and decision-making ability of the
NWEP over the production, (iii) which lawyers to use (i.e., who would handle the contracts). All
of these determinations by WHI management were against the specific advice and judgment of
Mr. Schultz. Management also refused Mr.Schultz’ request to hire a full-time production
estimator, while claiming incorrectly that there was no money for it. Management completely
dominated and controlled the organizational structure, yet for purposes of attempting to wrongfully
terminate him, blame is placed on Mr. Schultz. The alleged failing by Mr. Schultz concerning the
organizational structure do not even come close to being a breach, much less a material breach,
and the claim is a bad faith pretext designed to manufacture an issue to use as justification for a
termination.
7. Failure to address and not exacerbate tensions between contractors on the Series.
6
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
This must be a reference to John Semper and to Carin Greenberg. Al Roker Entertainment
and WHI were put on notice several times concerning hostility toward Jerry Brice and the DEI
Policy; however, no action was taken due to Management’s agenda concerning Jerry Brice and
Management’s lack of support and open derision for the DEI policy. Management’s support of
positions adopted by Mr. Semper and Ms. Greenberg has led to some of the most pernicious
problems on the Series. Management fostered a dysfunctional dynamic on the Series where Mr.
Semper and Management stood shoulder to shoulder with respect to issues of great concern. Mr.
Schultz supported Mr. Brice with regard to these issues and is now paying the price for doing so.
In this situation, Management scapegoated Mr. Schultz because of his support of Mr. Brice
and the DEI Policy and plan and Management allowed Mr. Schultz to be excluded from key
meetings and undermined him. Rather than support Mr. Schultz, Management went behind his
back to speak to Iris Sroka, the head of curriculum at the time, Carin Greenberg, the NWEP, Jerry
Brice, the supervising producer, and in doing so undermined Mr. Schultz’ ability to properly
function. The actions of Management all resulted in very bad morale. Jerry Brice has advised Mr.
Schultz on many occasions that Management questioned him on how “we could get around”
adhering to the DEI policy for hiring diverse writers or as CPB called them “new Voice Writers”,
which were so much part of the plan for the series according to both PBS and CPB – and without
which the series could fail to meet compliance with capitalization coming from the PBS
Foundation. Mr. Schultz made numerous objections to Management’s disdain for the DEI policy,
and its attempts to circumvent the DEI Policy as being inappropriate. Mr. Schultz also advised
Management that he would not shade the truth or misrepresent the implementation of the DEI
policy to PBS, who require reporting, to hide the truth. It was this legitimate concern by Mr.
Schultz that Al Roker Entertainment and WHI were denigrating the DEI policy and were failing
to implement it that proximately resulted in the current wrongful course of conduct. Mr. Schultz
complained about the treatment of Mr. Brice and the failure of Management to support the DEI
policy and that activity as a whistle-blower has now led to retaliation by Al Roker Entertainment
and WHI and the instant bad faith attempt to terminate him.
8. Failure to properly secure contractual agreement from all vendors and writers thus resulting
in copyright and IP issues for WHI.
This refers to the writer contracts, which, in the normal case, represent quite a
straightforward process. This matter has ultimately been handled properly but continues to be
much more disruptive than necessary. Al Roker Entertainment and WHI refused to allow Mr.
Schultz to establish a proper process relative to contracting, and instead insisted on using their
own attorney, who did not have any familiarity with setting up Contracts and writer payments on
an animated series 5. .
Al Roker Entertainment and WEI materially interfered with Mr. Schultz’ ability to establish
and maintain any kind of system to deal with the drafting and administration of contracts.
Authority to handle contracts was given to individuals on staff of the production who have no
5
Management insisted that Mr. Brice handle the writers contracts over the objection of Mr. Schultz. Management
also insisted that the Program did not require an additional contract or addendum for each episode a writer wrote -
which Mr. Schultz advised Management was completely incorrect. Management repeatedly told Mr. Schultz that
they would handle this issue but failed to do so.
7
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
substantive experience in this area. This was neither the responsibility of Mr. Schultz, nor a failing
on his part.6 We would be very interested to learn of the “copyright and IP issues” that have been
laid at the feet of Mr. Schultz. It is pretty easy to trash an individual’s reputation through the
instrumentality of a malicious Notice. It is quite another matter to prove-up spurious claims.
In addition, Mr. Schultz performed many responsibilities that are usually outside of the
responsibilities of executive producers who typically play supporting roles to qualified and
experienced Finance, Business Affairs, and Studio Executives. In this matter, the contractual
agreements concerning the instant Series are favorable. In particular, Al Roker Entertainment’s
ability to have virtually no production deficit and retain 100% of the ownership of the copyright
and all rights in the Series is exceptionally favorable to Mr. Roker. Notwithstanding this, Al Roker
Entertainment was unwilling to provide the services typically expected to be provided by an owner
of a Series of this type, without any fulltime Finance or Legal team. Further there was no real
production support. Al Roker Entertainment was the beneficiary of material economic benefits
due to the talent and skill of Mr. Schultz who provided necessary services as a non-exclusive
executive producer without the usual support and services that is customary in a production such
as this one. The alleged failing by Mr. Schultz concerning procuring contracts does not even come
to manufacture an issue to use as a spurious justification for a termination.
The Notice, as an obvious prelude to a wrongful termination and the breach of the
Agreement by Al Roker Entertainment and WHI, is materially flawed and does not contain any
legitimate basis for the termination of Mr. Schultz. The truth is that Mr. Schultz has faithfully and
fully executed his duties ; having labored to conceive and develop the Series since 2014, working
for practically no compensation in the early years.
The Notice is a dishonest, unjust, unfounded and unfair denigration of Mr. Schultz, who,
as you may (or may not) know, has a very notable career in the genre of animated programming.
Mr. Schultz was successful at turning “The Simpsons” around from a troubled production,
producing the best seasons of the Series, as acknowledged by many in the press, and fans, and by
Gracie Films and 20th Century Fox. Mr. Schultz also helped turn around the Marvel Animation
Studio when purchased by New World Entertainment. Mr. Schultz was also instrumental in
growing Film Roman into a 500 person $50 million a year Indie animation studio, leading to an
IPO for $33 million on NASDAQ. Additionally, Mr. Schultz set up Cartoon Network’s in-house
Studio managing 4 of its most successful animated series at startup satellite studios worldwide.
Notwithstanding the credentials and experience, and proven success of Mr. Schultz on previous
productions and on the Series, Al Roker Entertainment and WHI have embarked on an ill-advised
path in sending the Notice as what is apparent as a regrettable prelude to moving to terminate him.
Demand is hereby made that the bad faith Notice be immediately withdrawn and rescinded
and that it be deemed to be of no further force and effect. Additionally, Mr. Schultz must be
provided with adequate assurances within three (3) days of the date of this letter that the Agreement
will continue in full force and effect without any diminishment or modification. Nothing herein is
6
An EP doesn’t normally handle writer contracts. There is usually business affairs or legal perform those services
with some guidance by production.
8
Ms. Lisa Tucker
March 7, 2024
a full statement of the facts, nor any waiver of the considerable rights held by Mr. Schultz.
Sincerely,
John D. Maatta
9
EXHIBIT D
John D. Maatta
818-515-3623
john@frostllp.com
March 9, 2024
Ms. Lisa Tucker

Senior Vice President
Development & Production
Al Roker Entertainment
1357 Broadway, Suite 529
New York, New York 10018
via email:lisa@alroker.com
Dear Ms. Tucker:
Reference is made to that writing dated February 22, 2024, sent in your capacity as Senior
Vice President of Al Roker Entertainment, and styled as a purported notice to cure to William
“Bill” Schultz (“Mr. Schultz.”) from Weather Hunters, Inc. (the “Notice”). Reference is also made
to that response to the Notice that was sent you on behalf of Mr. Schultz both electronically and
by overnight courier on Thursday March 7, 2024. (the “Response”).
Since approximately 2014 Mr. Schultz has loyally dedicated himself to the production of
the “WeatherHunters” Series (the “Series”). Since the receipt of the Notice, over two weeks ago,
Mr. Schultz has continued to fully and faithfully perform all requirements and obligations under
that Services Agreement dated January 9, 2023. Mr. Schultz in preforming such services since the
receipt of the Notice on February 22, 2024, has complied with each and every request made of him
by Management and has continually performed each mandated requirement professionally, and
cheerfully (as is his usual manner).
The Notice states:
As stated above, you have 15 calendar days to cure the

breach by successfully addressing these various
production and financial issues. If the breach remains
uncured after fifteen (15) calendar days Home Plate
Lisa Tucker
March 9, 2024
Entertainment shall be deemed to be in default of the

Agreement will be immediately suspended, WHI will then
have the right to terminate the Agreement by notifying you
of the intention to do so pursuant to paragraph 8. of the
Agreement. ( Services Agreement of February 9, 2023)
It has now been sixteen (16) calendar days since Mr. Schultz’ receipt of the Notice, and two (2)
days since the tender of the Response. Although Mr. Schultz has been fully and faithfully
providing his services since the date of receipt of the Notice, the only response from Al Roker
Entertainment and Weather Hunters, Inc, since the tender of the response has been a brief email
from the attorney for those entities stating that there will be a response “in due course”.
Mr. Schultz is in a situation where he has dedicated himself for many years to the success
of the Weather Hunters Project. In doing so Mr. Schultz has been steadfastly responsive and loyal
and has relied on the fact that his agreement would be fully honored. With such being the case, the
receipt of the Notice on February 22 has been exceedingly difficult and disruptive to Mr. Schultz
and his family, who depend on the fulfilment of the Agreement to live and to meet their financial
obligations. Every day since the tender of the Notice has been very painful and emotionally very
difficult for Mr. Schultz and his family. Mr. Schultz is an exceptionally skilled professional and
each day this situation continues is becoming exceedingly more difficult for Mr. Schultz. This
continued limbo is harmful to Mr. Schultz; and surely by extension, it is harmful to the Series.
The legal verbiage that there will be “a response in due course” is surprisingly callous in
this situation where Mr. Schultz’ livelihood, reputation, and ability to support himself and his
family hang in the balance. Mr. Schultz deserves nothing less than immediate clarity in this
situation concerning the position of Al Roker Entertainment and Weather Hunters, Inc. concerning
his immediate status.
For all of the reasons stated in the Response, the Notice should be immediately withdrawn.
Mr. Schultz remains ready, willing, and able to continue to fully perform services on this Series
that he loves, as he has been doing at all times, without the threat of termination of the Agreement
hanging over his head. Mr. Schultz remains fully committed to attempting to move forward on a
positive footing in this situation and is very willing to engage in good faith discussions to advance
the positive progression of this matter at this time.
Sincerely,
John D. Maatta
2
EXHIBIT E
March 10, 2024
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT COURIER
John D. Maatta
Frost LLP
10960 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Re: Notice of Suspension
Dear Mr. Maatta,
WHI is in receipt of your March 7, 2024, letter response (the “Response”) to WHI’s
February 22, 2024, Notice of Default (the “Notice of Default”) and your March 9, 2024,
letter to Lisa Tucker (“Ms. Tucker”) regarding Mr. Schultz’s angst while waiting to hear
from WHI regarding the status of his contract. As you know, neither the law nor Mr.
Schultz’s contract require WHI to issue a decision regarding the sufficiency of Mr.
Schultz’s attempt to cure the default by a specific date or time. WHI is only required to
wait until the 15-day cure period has expired before it provides a response. It is also
disingenuous to accuse WHI of being “surprisingly callous” for acknowledging receipt of
the Response on the date it was received via e-mail and for not providing an immediate
update on the status of Mr. Schultz’s contract when your own letter asks for a response
by today, March 10, 2024. Finally, please refrain from sending correspondence directly to
Ms. Tucker as she is represented by legal counsel and doing so constitutes an ethical
violation. You should direct all future correspondence to my attention.
Regarding the Response, WHI does not agree with the facts as presented in your
letter and is not intimidated by the legal claims raised therein. WHI values the
contributions Mr. Schultz has made to Weather Hunters (the “Program”) over the years,
but those contributions do not negate the adverse effect that his shortcomings as an
executive producer have had and continue to have on the production. Therefore, it is
necessary for WHI to make some changes. Since Mr. Schultz did not cure the deficiencies
enumerated in the Notice of Default during the 15-day cure period, Home Plate
Entertainment Company is deemed to be in default of the Services Agreement (the
"Agreement ") dated January 9, 2023. Accordingly, the Agreement is automatically
suspended pursuant to Section 8, effective immediately.
During this suspension, Mr. Schultz should not report to work but should make himself
available to respond to questions and assist WHI as needed. WHI suggests creating a
joint statement regarding Mr. Schultz’s absence for both parties to use, if needed. WHI
is also open to having a conversation with Mr. Schultz in the near future to attempt to find
a way forward that works for both parties. Please advise if he is amenable to
meeting. Finally, please remind Mr. Schultz that he remains subject to Sections 10, 15,
17, and 18 of the Agreement and advise him that he should preserve all correspondence,
communications, work product, and related materials to avoid spoliation of
evidence. WHI will notify you of its decision regarding termination of the Agreement once
one has been made.
Kind regards,
Beverly J. Davis
EXHIBIT F
ADMITTED IN: WWW.STRACHERLAW.COM

NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
51 ASTOR PLACE
NEW YORK, NY 10003
_______________
(646) 992-3850
CAM@STRACHERLAW.COM
March 28, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Delivery
John D. Maatta
Frost LLP
10960 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA
Re: Notice of Termination – Bill Schulz
Dear John:
This letter will serve as notification of termination of the January 9, 2023 agreement (the
“Agreement”) between WeatherHunters, Inc. (“Company”) and Home Plate Entertainment
Company (“Lender”) for the services of Bill Schulz (“Schulz”), as amended on February 13,
2023. As you know, Company issued a Notice of Default to Lender on February 22, 2024, and
following Lender’s failure to cure the default, Company suspended Lender on March 10, 2024.
Company is now exercising its right to terminate the Agreement.
Pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Agreement, please advise Mr. Schulz to return all
Company equipment and supplies, and to deliver all Materials – including, but not limited to,
emails, documents (whether in paper or electronic form), text messages, progress and status
reports – to Company. All electronic documents (including email) can be sent to
info@weatherhunters.com. Physical material can be returned by Fed Ex to WeatherHunters, c/o
Caren Franklin, 45 Warwick Place, Port Washington, NY 11050. Please use Fed Ex account #
356-025-296.
Company shall have no further obligations to Mr. Schulz, except for those specifically set
forth in the Agreement. Please remind Mr. Schulz that he remains subject to Sections 10, 15, 17,
and 18 of the Agreement.
Sincerely,
Cameron Stracher
cc: Beverly J. Davis

Schultz v. Roker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schultz v. Roker

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schultz v. Roker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:24-cv-02852 Document 1 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WILLIAM SCHULTZ, an individual,

defendants WeatherHunters, Inc. (“WHI”), Al Roker Entertainment, Inc., Al Roker, an

individual, and Lisa Tucker, an individual (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:

implemented and administered by Plaintiff at the direction of Defendants. Following the

2. Plaintiff William Schultz is a resident of County of Los Angeles, State of

an individual is a resident of the State of New York.

Tucker, an individual is a resident of the State of New York.

8. Venue of this action is properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

New York, under the application of New York law.

9. Defendant WHI, Inc is Defendant Al Roker Entertainment and Defendant Al

hereunder was, the alter ego of Defendant WHI.

11. Therefore, adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Al Roker

decision-making authority such that Al Roker Entertainment exercised ultimate, unfettered

façade for the benefit of Al Roker Entertainment.

13. For example, Defendant Al Roker Entertainment “executives” dominated and

Entertainment, on stationery of Al Roker Entertainment and signed by a senior “executive” of Al

and WHI were one and the same.

Al Roker and Al Roker Entertainment Retain Plaintiff to Produce the Program

Entertainment” entity to produce a multimillion-dollar animated children’s program known as

upfront compensation. Mr. Schultz’s remained dedicated to achieving this production

a first-class broadcast quality 11-minute pilot—far exceeding the “development” production

committed to contribute a significant portion of the multi-million-dollar production budget for

necessary in the development and production of such a high-quality Program.

transparently discussing and mutually consenting on almost all material matters.

representing Al Roker Entertainment in place of Ms. Brennan.

Al Roker Entertainment was involved.

not possibly go well, and of course they didn’t go well at all.

acclaimed, experienced and commercially-successful producer of animated television—and also

matter came to a head leading to the pretextual termination of Mr. Schultz.

Agreement; and (3) an “Executive Producer” and “Creative Development” credit.

PBS’s Mandatory DEI Initiative

was the issue of racial diversity—specifically Defendants’ unjustified antipathy towards

African Americans. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

diversity policy, demonstrated surprisingly low tolerance or appreciation for or interest in

– and it allowed an opportunity for a historically marginalized group of animation professionals

audience on the PBS Kids network.

opportunity to provide an under-represented historically marginalized Class of people the

production team and attached to contracts of all parties.

could be disregarded if necessary and be evaded or overcome—even if it meant using

possible. Management of Al Roker Entertainment never appreciated or embraced the opportunity

the plan afforded those it was intended to benefit.

specifically charged with deepening the production’s relationships in the African-American

and sanctity of the PBS-mandated DEI policy.

Defendants Wrongfully Terminate Mr. Schultz

Schultz was targeted by Al Roker Entertainment, Franklin and Tucker.

as not to be curable. Based on these fabrications, Al Roker Entertainment subsequently

of the letter of March 10, 2024, is set forth as Exhibit “E’.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Defendants)

50. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(1)(a), “[i]t shall be an unlawful

actual or perceived…race… color, national origin, gender…immigration or citizenship status of

person; or (3) To discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or

51. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(6) “It shall be an unlawful

the acts forbidden under this chapter, or to attempt to do so.”

52. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(7) “[i]t shall be an unlawful

any practice forbidden under this chapter[.]”

discriminatory practices, Plaintiff’s services for Defendants were unlawfully terminated.