Faro v. Mahoney et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-23301-BLOOM/Elfenbein
JOHN FARO,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. JEREMIAH MAHONEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants J. Jeremiah Mahoney (“Mahoney”), the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and the United States
Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). ECF No. [24]. Plaintiff
did not file a Response in Opposition. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case,
the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’
Motion is granted.
I. 	DISCUSSION
In 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office initiated a disciplinary proceeding
against Plaintiff. ECF No. [1] ¶ 43. As a result of the hearing, Plaintiff was suspended from practice
before the USPTO. ECF No. [1] ¶¶ 48, 49. 	In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for 	(1)
“Continuing Violation of FARO’s Structural Constitutional Rights, by Defendants Illegal
Interagency Prosecution of FARO Disciplinary Proceeding”, ECF No. [1] at 15, (2) “Mahoney’s
Violation of FARO’s Rights Under the 5 th and 14th Amendment”, ECF No. [1] at 20, (3)
“Complaint for Declaratory Relief Under Federal Law (28 USC 2001)”, ECF No. [1] at 25, and
Case 1:25-cv-23301-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 25-cv-23301-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
(4) “Declaratory Relief Under State Law (Fla Stat. §§ 86.011 & 86.051)”, ECF No [1] at 28.
Plaintiff alleges his claims result from the Defendants denying him a fair hearing under 35 U.S.C.
§32. ECF No. [1] ¶ 17. Defendants move to dismiss arguing that “this court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claims because exclusive jurisdiction over them lies with the U.S. District Court in the
Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §32.” ECF No. [24] at 3.
Upon review, the Court agrees with the Defendants. As the Defendants correctly point out, “all
of the actions that form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims were taken by the Director of the USPTO
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §32.” Id. To that end, Section 32 of Title 35 provides that "The United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under such conditions and upon such
proceedings as it by its rules determines, may review the action of the Director upon the petition
of the person so refused recognition or so suspended or excluded.” 35 U.S.C. § 32. That language
creates exclusive jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Virginia for reviewing the Director's
disciplinary decisions regarding practice before the Patent and Trademark Office. Because
exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants’ Motion is granted.
II. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. [24] is GRANTED without prejudice.
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
3. 	To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
Case 1:25-cv-23301-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 25-cv-23301-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 9, 2026.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-23301-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 3 of 3