Short answer. No. The Rules of Court bar a second motion for reconsideration of the same judgment or final resolution by the same party. Once your first motion has been resolved, your remedy is to appeal or pursue whatever other remedy is still available, not to ask the same court to reconsider again.
What the law says
No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
Rule 52, Section 2 — Second motion for reconsideration. Read the full provision →
The rule is a flat bar, by party and by judgment
The prohibition is specific: it bars a second motion for reconsideration of the same judgment or final resolution, filed by the same party. It does not stop a different party in the same case from filing their own first motion, and it does not stop a party from moving for reconsideration of a later, different order. What it forecloses is asking the same court to revisit the same ruling twice.
Why the rule exists
Litigation has to end somewhere. If a party could keep filing motion after motion attacking the same judgment, a case could be relitigated indefinitely at the trial or appellate level, and the other side would never get the benefit of a decision that actually stands. Limiting a party to one motion for reconsideration per judgment is what makes the finality of judgments meaningful.
What happens if a second motion is filed anyway
A second motion for reconsideration shall not be entertained — the court is not required to rule on its merits at all, and filing one does not extend the period to appeal. Anyone considering asking the court to reconsider a second time should treat the first motion's resolution as the end of that avenue and look instead at whether an appeal or another proper remedy is still open and timely.
Getting the first motion right matters more because of this rule
Because there is ordinarily no second chance to move for reconsideration of the same ruling, it is worth making sure a motion for reconsideration raises every argument and every ground for reversal the party intends to rely on the first time, rather than holding something back for a follow-up motion that the rule does not allow. A motion drafted piecemeal, with weaker arguments saved for later, gets no benefit from that strategy here.
This is separate from a motion for new trial
The bar in this rule is specifically on a second motion for reconsideration. It does not by itself decide what happens with a motion for new trial or other post-judgment remedies a party might otherwise have, which are governed by their own rules and grounds. Anyone facing an unfavorable ruling after a first motion for reconsideration has been denied should look at what other remedies, such as an appeal, remain open and timely, rather than assuming every avenue is closed.