Short answer. No. A dismissal on the ground that your claim is barred by the statute of limitations bars refiling of the same action or claim. The same permanent bar applies to dismissals grounded on a prior judgment, on the claim having already been paid, waived, or extinguished, or on the statute of frauds.
What the law says
Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss or an affirmative defense that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; or that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim.
Rule 15, Section 13 — Dismissal with prejudice. Read the full provision →
Certain grounds for dismissal carry a permanent bar
Not every dismissal simply closes the door on refiling that particular claim later; many kinds of dismissal end up being without prejudice to a later refiling. This provision, however, identifies a specific set of grounds where an order granting dismissal, whether reached through a motion to dismiss or through an affirmative defense raised in the answer, carries a much stronger and more permanent consequence: it actually bars the refiling of that same action or claim altogether going forward.
The listed grounds
The specific grounds listed here are that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations, that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has already been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by some other means, or that the underlying claim is unenforceable under the applicable provisions of the statute of frauds. A dismissal that rests on any one of these particular grounds triggers this bar against refiling.
Why prescription specifically leads to a permanent bar
A claim that is barred by the statute of limitations is not simply procedurally premature, mistimed, or misfiled in some fixable way — the underlying substantive right to sue on it has itself already expired through the mere passage of time. Because the defect here is genuinely substantive rather than a fixable technicality, dismissing on that particular ground and then allowing the very same claim to be refiled later would defeat the entire underlying purpose of having a prescriptive period in the first place.
The right of appeal remains open
This particular bar on refiling operates expressly subject to the right of appeal. A party who loses on one of these listed grounds is not simply left without any further recourse whatsoever — the appropriate and proper response to a dismissal grounded on prescription or one of the other listed grounds is instead to appeal that specific order, rather than to attempt filing the exact same claim again as an entirely new case.