to proceed- However, not even this extreme parsing of her claim can save the Plaintiffs suit. The Supreme Court, on at least two occasions, has stated that the “plain meaning of a right to payment is nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation.” F.C.C. v. NextWave Personal Commc’ns Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 294, 123 S.Ct. 832, 154 L.Ed.2d 863 (2003) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 559, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990). Consistent with this definition, lower courts have held an equitable remedy will “give rise to a right of payment” and therefore be deemed a “claim,” when the payment of monetary damages is an alternative to the equitable remedy. In Re Matter of Udell, 18 F.3d 403, 407 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Cont’l Airlines, 125
holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim recognizing that the determination is an equitable one holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3 holding that where plaintiffs had an alternative remedy the court would not substitute its judgment for that of congress by creating an implied right of action holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment