Yes! You can use AI to fill out Form JS 44 (Rev. 08/18), Civil Cover Sheet

People often enter only a business trade name, omit middle initials, reverse first/last names, or fail to identify government parties properly (agency first, then official name and title). This happens because filers copy captions informally or assume the complaint caption is enough. Incorrect party naming can cause docketing errors, misidentification of parties, and delays in issuing summons or matching the case to related matters. Use the exact legal names as they appear in the complaint caption, and for government defendants list the agency and the official with title (e.g., “U.S. Department of X, John Doe, Secretary”).

A frequent mistake is entering a city, state, mailing address, or the attorney’s county instead of the county of residence of the first-listed party, or using the plaintiff’s county in U.S. plaintiff cases when the form requires the first-listed defendant’s county. This occurs because the rule changes depending on whether the U.S. is the plaintiff and because “county of residence” is easy to confuse with venue or mailing address. Wrong county information can lead to administrative confusion and may complicate internal court reporting and case assignment processes. Confirm whether it is a U.S. plaintiff case and enter the correct county name (and for land condemnation, use the tract location county).

Filers often omit the firm name, full address, telephone number, or the attorney of record, or they list multiple attorneys without attaching a separate sheet and noting “see attachment.” This happens when people assume the ECF filing profile is sufficient or they copy only part of the signature block. Missing contact details can delay clerk follow-up, notices, or corrections and can create confusion about who is responsible for the filing. Enter the full firm/contact information and, if multiple attorneys are involved, attach a list and clearly reference it in Section I(c).

A common error is marking more than one jurisdiction basis, or selecting “Diversity” when the complaint is actually a federal question case (or vice versa), or failing to follow the precedence rule when the U.S. is a party. This happens because filers conflate venue, claims, and jurisdiction statutes, or they try to “cover all bases.” Incorrect jurisdiction coding can cause clerk’s office follow-up, misclassification, and potential motion practice if the pleading is inconsistent. Mark only one box, apply the precedence guidance (U.S. plaintiff/defendant codes override federal question/diversity), and ensure the complaint’s jurisdiction allegations match the selection.

People often complete Section III even when they did not select Diversity in Section II, or they select Diversity but leave Section III blank. This happens because the section is visually prominent and filers may not realize it is “for diversity cases only.” Leaving it incomplete can trigger deficiency notices or create inconsistencies with the jurisdiction basis. Only complete Section III if Diversity is checked, and then mark one citizenship box for the principal plaintiff and one for the principal defendant (including corporate incorporation/principal place of business where applicable).

For business entities, filers frequently check only one corporate box, choose “Citizen of This State” instead of the incorporation/principal place of business options, or guess without confirming the entity’s legal status. This happens because corporate citizenship rules are technical and the form’s labels are easy to misread. Misstating citizenship can undermine diversity allegations and lead to jurisdiction challenges or dismissal. Verify the entity type and accurately mark whether it is incorporated and/or has its principal place of business in the same or another state, consistent with the complaint.

Filers often pick a code that matches the general topic (e.g., “Other Statutory Actions”) rather than the most applicable specific code, or they select multiple codes even though the form requires one. This happens because many categories overlap and people focus on remedies rather than the primary claim. Wrong coding can affect statistical reporting, internal routing, and can prompt clerk questions if it conflicts with the complaint. Choose the single code that best matches the primary cause of action and use the court’s “Nature of Suit Code Descriptions” to confirm the closest fit.

A frequent mistake is marking “Original Proceeding” for removed cases, using “Transferred from Another District” for within-district reassignment, or selecting a nonexistent Origin Code 7. This happens because filers confuse procedural posture with where the case is being filed and may not know the distinctions among transfer, MDL transfer, and direct-file MDL. Incorrect origin coding can cause docketing corrections and delays in properly linking the case to the correct procedural track. Confirm whether the case is removed, remanded, reopened, transferred under 1404(a), or part of an MDL transfer/direct file, and select only the matching box.

People often list only 28 U.S.C. § 1331/1332 (jurisdictional statutes) instead of the substantive statute creating the claim, or they provide a vague description without a statute. This happens because filers copy the jurisdiction paragraph rather than the claim’s legal basis. Incorrect entries can lead to misclassification and clerk follow-up, and it can create inconsistencies with the complaint. Provide the substantive U.S. civil statute directly related to the claim (e.g., “47 USC 553”) and add a brief, specific description of the cause of action.

Filers frequently omit the dollar amount, write “to be determined,” or include narrative text without indicating a clear amount or stating an alternative demand (e.g., injunction). This happens because damages may be uncertain or because the complaint seeks non-monetary relief. An unclear demand can trigger clerk questions and may create inconsistencies with the complaint’s prayer for relief. Enter the actual amount demanded if stated in the complaint, or clearly indicate the type of relief sought (e.g., “Preliminary and permanent injunction; damages per proof”) consistent with the pleading.

A common error is checking the class action box when the complaint does not plead Rule 23 allegations, or marking “Jury Demand: Yes” when no jury demand appears in the complaint (or vice versa). This happens because filers treat the cover sheet as a preference form rather than a reflection of what is demanded in the pleading. Inconsistencies can cause confusion, require amendments, or lead to disputes about whether a jury was properly demanded. Check “Class Action” only if the complaint asserts a Rule 23 class, and mark the jury demand box to match exactly what is demanded in the complaint.