MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, Judge

Plaintiff Landmark Building Systems, Inc. ("Landmark") brings this diversity action against Defendants The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company ("Whiting-Turner") and United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company ("USFG"). Now before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Transfer of Venue. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the Motion.

I. Background

Landmark is a Pennsylvania corporation which provides services for the manufacture, assembly, and installation of modular buildings. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Whiting-Turner is a Maryland corporation, and USFG is a Maryland insurance company. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Both Defendants have their principal place of business in Maryland. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) On or about April 17, 2000, in order to execute its contract to provide modular dormitory buildings for the State University of New York, Purchase College, Defendant Whiting-Turner subcontracted with Landmark for the provision of labor, supervision, and materials. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9.) USFG issued a bond to guarantee the obligations of Whiting-Turner to pay for the work performed by Landmark. (Compl. ¶¶ 20-22.) The subcontract between Landmark and Whiting-Turner included a choice of law and forum selection clause which states:

This Subcontract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Maryland, without regard to the principles of conflict of laws. Any action or suit arising hereunder shall be brought in the jurisdiction where the Contractor's principal office is located without regard to principles of conflict of laws or forum non conveniens.

(Compl., Ex. A at 14.)

Disregarding the contractual choice of forum, Landmark brought this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Whiting-Turner for breach of contract and quantum meruit, arising out of its alleged failure to pay for services performed under that contract, and against USFG as surety for Whiting-Turner. Defendants subsequently moved to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the District of Maryland.

II. Motion to Transfer Venue

"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). When deciding a forum non conveniens motion, a court must "consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interest of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum." Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts "have considered a number of private and public interest factors." Remick v. Manfredy, 138 F. Supp.2d 652, 655 (E.D.Pa. 2001).

The private factors include: (1) the plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) the defendant's preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses, but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records, but only to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum. The public interests include: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious or inexpensive; (3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from Court congestion; (4) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; and (5) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases."

Id. at 655 (citing Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879).

While a forum selection clause is not dispositive, it is treated as a manifestation of the parties' preferences as to a convenient forum, and therefore is accorded substantial weight. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880. "Thus, while courts normally defer to a plaintiff's choice of forum, such deference is inappropriate where the plaintiff has already freely contractually chosen an appropriate venue." Id. Furthermore, although the moving party generally has the burden of establishing the need for transfer, "[w]here the forum selection clause is valid . . . the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating why they should not be bound by their contractual choice of forum." Id. (quoting The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1972)).

In the present case, neither party disputes the validity of the forum selection clause. (Defendants' Motion for Transfer at 2; Plaintiff's Response at 5, 9.) Accordingly, Landmark bears the burden of demonstrating why this action should not be transferred to the agreed upon forum.

The "private factors" to be considered under Jumara, aside from the parties' preferences as reflected by the forum selection clause, weigh only slightly in Landmark's favor. Landmark argues that the subcontract at issue and a significant portion of the work performed under the subcontract arose in this District. (Pl. Resp. at 8.) However, the location in which an action arose is only one factor that the Court must consider. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880. Landmark also argues that its witnesses and records are located in this forum. (Pl. Resp. at 7.) The convenience of the witnesses, however, is only to be considered "to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora" and the location of records is only to be considered "to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum". Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Since Landmark does not argue that its witnesses and records cannot be transported from Philadelphia to Baltimore, these factors are not relevant to the Court's analysis. Landmark also makes reference to its status as a local manufacturing company with relatively few employees and financial resources. (Pl. Resp. at 8.) Nonetheless, if Landmark could undertake the construction project at issue, which was based in Albany, New York, it seems unlikely that it cannot be present in Baltimore. (Compl., Ex. A at 1.)

The "public factors" listed in Jumara also do not provide a justification for departing from the parties' contractual forum selection. Although Landmark correctly argues that there is a local interest in deciding local controversies at home, whether Pennsylvania or Maryland is "local" in this case is debatable. (Pl. Resp. at 8.) While Landmark is located in Pennsylvania, Defendants are located in Maryland, and the subcontract governed a project based in Albany, New York. Further, Landmark has provided no reason why a judgment from the District of Maryland could not be enforced elsewhere, or that trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would be easier, more expeditious, or less expensive. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Likewise, there is no evidence that the docket of this Court is significantly less congested than the docket of the District of Maryland. Finally, as both parties agree, the substance of this action is governed by Maryland state law, providing a reason to believe that a trial judge in the District of Maryland would be more familiar with the applicable state law. Id. See also Connors v. R S Parts Services, Inc., 2003 WL 1062916 (E.D.Pa. 2003) (transferring venue to District of New Jersey based in part on determination that New Jersey District Judge would be more familiar with applicable law in case governed by New Jersey state law.)

Considering all of the relevant factors, the Court finds that Landmark has not met its burden of demonstrating why the parties' contractual forum selection should be rejected.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion for Transfer of Venue and transfer the above-captioned action to the District of Maryland. An appropriate Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this — 21 — day of April, 2003, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Transfer of Venue (docket no. 4), Plaintiff's Response thereto (docket no. 6), and Defendants' Reply (docket no. 7), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall deliver the file and record to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.