Matthew
C.
Blickensderfer
Member
Matt Blickensderfer helps clients solve their challenges in two principal areas: (1) antitrust litigation and counseling, and (2) appellate litigation. Mr. Blickensderfer is a member in the litigation department.
Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
Matt has handled a wide variety of antitrust litigation, including cases alleging price-fixing and other conspiracies, monopolization, tying, and exclusive dealing. He frequently consults with clients outside the litigation context on all aspects of state and federal antitrust law including price discrimination. His antitrust work spans many industries, including sports, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, automobile-related businesses, and payment services.
Matt most recently represented NASCAR in the successful defense of a conspiracy and monopolization case brought by Kentucky Speedway in federal district court. The lawsuit alleged that NASCAR and various racetrack operators, including NASCAR’s sister company, had conspired to exclude Kentucky Speedway and that NASCAR had illegally monopolized stock car racing. In January of 2008, the district judge granted summary judgment for the defense.
Appellate Litigation
Matt also represents clients in federal and state appellate courts. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable David A. Nelson, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He is the editor-in-chief of the Sixth Circuit Practice Manual (LexisNexis 3d ed. 2006) and the author of its chapters on appellate jurisdiction, stays pending appeal, and briefing requirements. He is also a co-author of Kentucky Appellate Practice (Thompson/West 2006) with his colleagues Sheryl Snyder and Griffin Terry Sumner.
Matt’s recent appellate work includes these successes:
- Alliance Health Group LLC v. Bridging Health Options, LLC, 553 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2008) - This case of first impression in the Fifth Circuit involved an issue of interpretation of forum selection clauses on which three other circuits had split. Matt successfully argued that a clause requiring litigation "in" a particular county permitted litigation in federal court, and not just the state court for that county, so long as the federal courthouse was physically located in the county in question.
- Ignazio v. Clear Channel Communications, 113 Ohio St.3d 276, 865 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 2007) – The court of appeals had held that Clear Channel’s employment arbitration agreement was unenforceable because of an objectionable provision. Matt successfully convinced the Ohio Supreme Court to accept this appeal in order to set standards for severability of contract provisions, and then convinced the Supreme Court to reverse the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that the unlawful provision of the arbitration agreement was severable and the remainder of the agreement enforceable.
- Scovill v. WSYX/ABC, 425 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir. 2005) – In this employment discrimination lawsuit, Matt successfully urged the Sixth Circuit to reverse the district court’s severance of certain aspects of an arbitration agreement while affirming the district court’s findings that the dispute was arbitrable and the arbitration clause lawful.