Rule 503.Successive Applications for Orders or Writs; Motions for Reconsideration

Rule 503 closes two doors and opens one.

No judge shopping

If an application for any order or writ is denied in whole or in part, neither the party nor the attorney may make any subsequent application to any other judge. The only route is appeal to a higher court.

The enforcement is unusually direct. An order obtained in violation will be immediately vacated by the judge who issued it — the second judge undoes their own order on learning of the first ruling. And the court must sanction both the party and the attorney, including by assessing the costs and attorney fees the other side incurred defending against it. Sanctions here are mandatory, not discretionary.

Two exceptions

A second application for a constitutional writ may be made if the first application and the adverse ruling are disclosed to the second judge — disclosure cures it. And a party may always renew an application to the same judge, or a succeeding judge. But the rule adds that renewing does not itself create a right to move for reconsideration.

Reconsideration

A motion to reconsider an order entered before final judgment may be made at any time prior to, or within 14 days after, entry of the final judgment. So an interlocutory order stays open to reconsideration for the life of the case and a fortnight beyond. A motion to reconsider an order entered after final judgment must be made within 14 days of that order.

What cannot be reconsidered

No motion to reconsider lies from an order on a motion under Rule 303 (setting aside a default), Rule 801 (findings), Rule 804 (new trial or amendment of judgment) or Rule 805 (relief from judgment).

The logic is that those motions are themselves second looks. Allowing reconsideration of them would restart the appeal clock indefinitely. A party dissatisfied with a ruling on one of the four appeals it under Rule 813.