Bar/Professional Activity:

• U.S. District Court Southern District of California
• U.S. District Court Northern District of California
• U.S. District Court Eastern District of California
• U.S. District Court Central District of California
• California
• Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association – Family Law and Estate Planning Sectors
• Member, Association of Business Trial Lawyers

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

• Lecturer, "You and Your Legal Health."
• Lecturer, "Kids and the Law;" "Why to Avoid Probate"
• Lecturer, "You and Your Legal Rights"
• Adjunct Professor, National University

Verdicts and Settlements:

• RESULT DATE: June 21, 2010 Shahram Azordegan, One Source Global Tech Inc. v. Albert Agadjanian, Carloops Inc. (BC365798) 10-JV_1299 Hon. Ronald M. Sohigian L.A. Superior Central TOPIC: Contracts SUB TOPIC: Breach of Contract FURTHER DESCRIPTION: Purchase and Sale Agreement VERDICT: $1,310,000 ATTORNEY: Plaintiff - Mary Der-Parseghian (Der-Parseghian Law Group, Los Angeles); Ali Taheripour (Mgdesyan & Taheripour, Sherman Oaks). Defendant - Perry Roshan-Zamir (Law Offices of Perry Roshan-Zamir, Santa Monica). TECHNICAL: Plaintiff - Eva Salzer, document examination, Santa Monica; Alan D. Wallace, Esq., real estate broker/agent, fiduciary duties, Sherman Oaks. FACTS: On May 24, 2005, defendants Albert Agadjanian and his company, Carloops Inc., placed the Carloops business, a car wash and lube/detail facility for sale, on the real estate market. The eventual purchaser was plaintiff Shahram Azordegan and his company, One Source Global Tech Inc. On March 13, 2006, plaintiffs and defendants entered into a purchase contract for the purchase of the "Business Interest" for the total sum of $1.9 million and a separate lease agreement for the real property for the next 30 years. The parties disputed the nature and extent of the interest that was the subject of the purchase and sale agreement, including the non-disclosure of a construction project that resulted in the street closure of 322 N. Sunset Ave., La Puente, California, and whether the sale of the business included all leases and the right to re-lease the property after termination of the existing leases. Plaintiffs filed suit for breach of written contracts, seeking damages. DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants claimed that they provided full disclosure and the sale of the business included the existing leases, but did not give the buyer the right to re-lease the property to new tenants. JURY TRIAL: Length, eight days; Deliberation, one hour RESULT: The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding $1,310,000 in damages. OTHER INFORMATION: FILING DATE: Feb. 5, 2007.

Video:

Educational Background:

• California State University – Northridge in Business, B.A., 2000