This decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action.  While the defendants made a bunch of mistakes in conducting the underlying quiet title action, they did not lack probable cause because two instruments describing the same easement signed by the same grantor gave conflicting information about the easement’s temporal duration.  A reasonable attorney could think it tenable to sue to quiet title on the ground that the easement had expired under the one instrument that gave it only a limited duration.