enied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at the initial hearing date, rather than giving the parties additional time to supplement their evidentiary filings, plaintiff could have filed a subsequent motion for summary judgment addressing the same issue(s), this time with the proper documentary evidence. Because a party may re-urge a previously denied motion for summary judgment, the initial denial of summary judgment on an issue does not bar a second motion for summary judgment on the same issue. Simpson v. Davidson, 35,048 (La.App.2d Cir.10/31/01), 799 So.2d 652 ; Gailey v. Barnett, 12–0830 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/05/12), 106 So.3d 625, writ denied,12–2761 (La.02/22/13), 108 So.3d 770 ; State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Office of Risk Management v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 10–0689 (La.App. 1st Cir.02/11/11), 56 So.3d 1236, writ denied, 11–0849 (La.06/03/11), 63 So.3d 1023. As noted by this court in Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc., 47,025 (La.App.2d Cir.05/09/12), 92 So.3d 560, writ denied,12–1318 (La.09/28/12), 98 So.3d 844, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is merely an interlocutory ruling that does not bar reconsideration of the same issues raised in the unsuccessful motion. In this case, the trial court's decision to continue the matter to a later date rather than denying summary judgment initially, then requiring plaintiff to refile for summary judgment, something that would be costly and time consuming, was well within its discretion.