This decision affirms the granting of a defendant law firm’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike a malicious prosecution action against it, finding the firm had probable cause to name a citizens group and some of its individual members as defendants in a quiet title action that sought to confirm the law firm’s client’s ownership of water rights in a creek.  The citizens group had claimed that the water was owned instead by the City of Weed and successfully lobbied the City to petition the watermaster to assign the disputed water rights to the City, not the law firm’s client.  Quiet title actions may be brought against those who, while claiming no interest in the property themselves, disparage the plaintiff’s title by claiming a third party (here, the City) owns the property.  Had the plaintiffs confined themselves to mere public advocacy, they might not have been proper defendants, but when they successfully urged the City to petition the watermaster to award the water rights to the City and threatened litigation if the watermaster ruled against the City, they took steps that a reasonable attorney could think established grounds to sue them to quiet title.