What are you talking about? The motion was heard, with Orly and her client both present, on the day it was scheduled for. Orly claims that her client had a right to trial by jury, but there are no juries in injunction cases.
In violation of the states rules.
State rules don't apply in federal court. The procedure applied here was in conformity with the federal rules.
For a law student, you seem to forget those facts.
I haven't been a law student for a long time. I have been a practicing lawyer for more than 30 years.
eh...would you like fries with that mistake?
What mistake is that?
As to the motion, it seems her complaint is that she was not accorded the amount of time to respond provided in the rules.
As to the right to a jury trial, you are correct that injunctive relief is not submitted to a jury, but is that the only relief sought in the case? If she is asking for other things, there could be a basis for the right to a jury trial.
As to state vs. federal. There you are mistaken, although the reference to “the states rules” is misleading. The federal courts have a dual set of rules: one that is common to all the federal courts in the nation and what are known as “local rules”, which are promulgated on a state-by-state and circuit by circuit basis. So she may be referring to a local rule when she refers to a rule applicable to federal court in that particular location.