Hoffman’s recordation of an abstract of judgment against Weeden’s property was protected activity under CCP 425.16(e), satisfying his Anti-SLAPP motion’s first prong.  The litigation privilege also shielded Hoffman from liability on Weeden’s claim for slander of title, and that cause of action was properly stricken.  However, the litigation privilege did not apply to or bar Weeden’s claims to quiet title or for cancellation of an instrument, the abstract.  Weeden proved a probability of success on the quiet title and cancellation claims by showing there was considerable question whether the recorded abstract of judgment properly reflected the terms of the judgment it purported to abstract.  An abstract that does not comply with CCP 674, because it claims an amount not awarded by the judgment, may be canceled or voided by the court.