Here is the opinion from the California Court of Appeals (4th Dist., Div. 2).

An excerpt:

The trial court issued a postjudgment assignment order (Code of Civ. Proc., § 708.510) against the Cahuilla Band of Indians (Cahuilla), in favor of Mary DiCara dba Scott Leasing (Scott). Cahuilla contends the assignment order should be reversed because (1) the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order; (2) the lease agreement, upon which the underlying damage award was based, was void since inception; and (3) federal law and Cahuilla’s revenue allocation plan preempt the superior court’s order. Scott contends that it should be awarded attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the judgment and award attorney’s fees to Scott.

The trial court issued a postjudgment assignment order (Code of Civ. Proc.,§ 708.510)1, 2 against the Cahuilla Band of Indians (Cahuilla), in favor of Mary DiCaradba Scott Leasing (Scott). Cahuilla contends the assignment order should be reversedbecause (1) the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order; (2) the leaseagreement, upon which the underlying damage award was based, was void sinceinception; and (3) federal law and Cahuilla’s revenue allocation plan preempt thesuperior court’s order. Scott contends that it should be awarded attorney’s fees onappeal. We affirm the judgment and award attorney’s fees to Scott.