of Leon Valley, 643 F.3d 419, 423 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing Third Church of Christ, Scientist, of N.Y.C. v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 667 (2d Cir.2010)); see also Elijah Grp., Inc., 643 F.3d at 422-24 (describing how the various tests using “similarly situated” language differ, while declining to choose among them). We need not definitively choose among the various tests used by other circuits in order to resolve this case. Granting summary judgment to the government is erroneous under any test, because “summary judgment must be denied in a proceeding for equitable relief ... where genuine issues of material fact exist.” Hasan v. Clevetrust Realty Inv’rs, 729 F.2d 372, 374 (6th Cir.1984); cf. Hess v. Schlesinger, 486 F.2d 1311, 1313 (D.C.Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. Ostermann, 534
holding that when a plaintiff seeking an injunction raises a genuine issue of fact material to the defendant governments claim regarding its justification for a policy summary judgment is inappropriate holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact